# Charlie Gard has passed



## SassyIrishLass

Bless you little one.

*Charlie Gard, focus of international legal health battle, dies week before first birthday*

British baby Charlie Gard, who was at the center of a legal battle that captured the world’s attention, died Friday, one week before his first birthday, UK’s Press Association reports.

Charlie Gard, focus of international legal health battle, dies week before first birthday


----------



## koshergrl

This is a day of celebration among the death cultists! Baby killers, rejoice!


----------



## peach174

Such a tragedy , rest in peace little baby boy.
We will never know how it might have turned out ,if the parents had been able to fly
to America much sooner.
Perhaps the same tragic ending but at least it was a possible chance.
Too bad the courts had to interfere.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

koshergrl said:


> This is a day of celebration among the death cultists! Baby killers, rejoice!


Dumb statement. You are such a disgusting hateful person


----------



## jillian

koshergrl said:


> This is a day of celebration among the death cultists! Baby killers, rejoice!



no, troll. no one is celebrating.

but what was noble about keeping a body alive that can't breathe,  eat or move on it's own.

I know you insane twit like the idea of torturing people, but that baby didn't deserve to be tortured by the likes of you.;


----------



## PredFan

A Socialized Medicine Death Panel killed that child.


----------



## koshergrl

PredFan said:


> A Socialized Medicine Death Panel killed that child.


Exactly.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

*Hopefully The Symbolism of Charlie Gard’s Death as it Relates to Government Healthcare is Not Lost*

Hopefully The Symbolism of Charlie Gard’s Death as it Relates to Government Healthcare is Not Lost


----------



## peach174

jillian said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a day of celebration among the death cultists! Baby killers, rejoice!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, troll. no one is celebrating.
> 
> but what was noble about keeping a body alive that can't breathe,  eat or move on it's own.
> 
> I know you insane twit like the idea of torturing people, but that baby didn't deserve to be tortured by the likes of you.;
Click to expand...



Then why should we have any experimental drugs at all?
That is the point of it.


----------



## mdk

How sad! This case was total and complete bullshit. Fuck the courts that ruled against his parents.


----------



## playtime

koshergrl said:


> This is a day of celebration among the death cultists! Baby killers, rejoice!



wow.  politicizing that little boy's death is beyond incomprehensible.   but yet again you show your* true self.       
*
even jesus would be  disgusted with you & anybody else who chimes in to score  political brownie points.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

mdk said:


> How sad! This case was total and complete bullshit. Fuck the courts that ruled against his parents.


Let's just hope we don't end up with that bs here.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Pray for the parents.  There is nothing worse than losing a child.  Very sad day.


----------



## DarkFury

*Today the UK lost all honor for human life.
Today the UK showed what shit stain care will be in twenty years.
Today an infant child with the very common name of Charlie passed and that common infant child may have more impact on American politics and voting in 2018 then any adult alive. God bless little infant Charlie a babe not a year old may well have saved more lives in his death then any death short of Jesus before him!

Fury*


----------



## The Great Goose




----------



## blackhawk

Sad end to a tragic situation.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

In a final slap, a kick if you will, the court ruled that this baby's parents could not take him home.  He died in hospice where he could be denied even a suck of water.


----------



## ph3iron

koshergrl said:


> This is a day of celebration among the death cultists! Baby killers, rejoice!


Such stupidity. The kid was brain dead for gods sake.
And how many abortions and birth control pills have you taken pray tell.
Zero sex ? Hilarious to be so supercilious


----------



## ph3iron

Tipsycatlover said:


> In a final slap, a kick if you will, the court ruled that this baby's parents could not take him home.  He died in hospice where he could be denied even a suck of water.


Could be? He wasn't, jeez


----------



## DarkFury

Tipsycatlover said:


> In a final slap, a kick if you will, the court ruled that this baby's parents could not take him home.  He died in hospice where he could be denied even a suck of water.


*2018 everybody up for election that supports shit stain care needs unemployment!*


----------



## DigitalDrifter

This will be the future here once government controlled single-payer gets it's tennacles entrenched here.


----------



## PredFan

DarkFury said:


> *Today the UK lost all honor for human life.
> Today the UK showed what shit stain care will be in twenty years.
> Today an infant child with the very common name of Charlie passed and that common infant child may have more impact on American politics and voting in 2018 then any adult alive. God bless little infant Charlie a babe not a year old may well have saved more lives in his death then any death short of Jesus before him!
> 
> Fury*



He was left to die to protect the mainstay of progressive and globalist politics. Just think what a disaster it would have been to the objectives of the left, if treatment here in the capitalist America would have saved his life?


----------



## PredFan

DigitalDrifter said:


> This will be the future here once government controlled single-payer gets it's tennacles entrenched here.



Fact.


----------



## Death Angel

jillian said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a day of celebration among the death cultists! Baby killers, rejoice!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, troll. no one is celebrating.
> 
> but what was noble about keeping a body alive that can't breathe,  eat or move on it's own.
> 
> I know you insane twit like the idea of torturing people, but that baby didn't deserve to be tortured by the likes of you.;
Click to expand...

Your people are advocating for the same system here. You have no right lecturing any conservative.


----------



## koshergrl

Death Angel said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a day of celebration among the death cultists! Baby killers, rejoice!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, troll. no one is celebrating.
> 
> but what was noble about keeping a body alive that can't breathe,  eat or move on it's own.
> 
> I know you insane twit like the idea of torturing people, but that baby didn't deserve to be tortured by the likes of you.;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your people are advocating for the same system here. You have no right lecturing any conservative.
Click to expand...


Jills is all about killing other people's kids.


----------



## LoneLaugher

mdk said:


> How sad! This case was total and complete bullshit. Fuck the courts that ruled against his parents.



Man. You try hard sometimes. Don't worry, bro. You are so cool that all of us love you. You don't have to appease the idiots. 

That baby had a terminal illness which resulted in his life being one of unending suffering. Nothing could have saved him. His passing may be the best thing that ever happened to him.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Grampa Murked U said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> How sad! This case was total and complete bullshit. Fuck the courts that ruled against his parents.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just hope we don't end up with that bs here.
Click to expand...


You idiot. Do you know how many people there are who DIE in the US from shit that Brits never die from because they have universal health care? Try learning.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Once single payer leaves the government in charge of whether people can spend their own money on their own medical care,  they will be denying 70 year olds treatment for a broken leg.


----------



## LoneLaugher

DigitalDrifter said:


> This will be the future here once government controlled single-payer gets it's tennacles entrenched here.



tennacles. 

Perfect.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

LoneLaugher said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> How sad! This case was total and complete bullshit. Fuck the courts that ruled against his parents.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just hope we don't end up with that bs here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You idiot. Do you know how many people there are who DIE in the US from shit that Brits never die from because they have universal health care? Try learning.
Click to expand...

Because Britian has universal health care people have to pull their own teeth.

Sufferers pull out teeth due to lack of dentists


----------



## hjmick

Passed what?


----------



## AvgGuyIA

Well the .leftists got their fitst post birth legal abortion.  They will claim their is  precedent to abort babies up to one year of age. 

Think not?  It's coming.


----------



## koshergrl

AvgGuyIA said:


> Well the .leftists got their fitst post birth legal abortion.  They will claim their is  precedent to abort babies up to one year of age.
> 
> Think not?  It's coming.


Oh it's not their first. Or second, or third. 

Kermit Gosnell - Wikipedia


----------



## mdk

LoneLaugher said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> How sad! This case was total and complete bullshit. Fuck the courts that ruled against his parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man. You try hard sometimes. Don't worry, bro. You are so cool that all of us love you. You don't have to appease the idiots.
> 
> That baby had a terminal illness which resulted in his life being one of unending suffering. Nothing could have saved him. His passing may be the best thing that ever happened to him.
Click to expand...


Pshaw! I am not attempting to appease anyone here. Whether someone agrees with my position on any given issue matters very little to me. Also, I don't have to "try" at anything, most of this shit just comes naturally. lol  

That being said, this may have been the best thing to happen, but every option should have been allowed to be explored.


----------



## koshergrl

Doctors are wrong all the time, and people who are given "death sentences" and whose parents are told they will be insensible monsters prove doctors wrong all the time. 

As you can see, death panels are real. Those who defend this are ok with that.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

mdk said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> How sad! This case was total and complete bullshit. Fuck the courts that ruled against his parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man. You try hard sometimes. Don't worry, bro. You are so cool that all of us love you. You don't have to appease the idiots.
> 
> That baby had a terminal illness which resulted in his life being one of unending suffering. Nothing could have saved him. His passing may be the best thing that ever happened to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pshaw! I am not attempting to appease anyone here. Whether someone agrees with my position on any given issue matters very little to me. Also, I don't have to "try" at anything, most of this shit just comes naturally. lol
> 
> That being said, this may have been the best thing to happen, but every option should have been allowed to be explored.
Click to expand...


Any thinking and caring person would think that...you have to try


----------



## SassyIrishLass

koshergrl said:


> Doctors are wrong all the time, and people who are given "death sentences" and whose parents are told they will be insensible monsters prove doctors wrong all the time.
> 
> As you can see, death panels are real. Those who defend this are ok with that.



At times I watch a little tyke who has Downs, the Dr's told the parents he would not be able to walk, have all sorts of issues but he's fine with the exception he's a Downs child. He is his mommy and daddy's world. He's adorable and a happy little guy.


----------



## Wyatt earp




----------



## mdk

SassyIrishLass said:


> Any thinking and caring person would think that...you have to try



They should have at least been given the option, even if it was a fool's hope.


----------



## koshergrl

SassyIrishLass said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doctors are wrong all the time, and people who are given "death sentences" and whose parents are told they will be insensible monsters prove doctors wrong all the time.
> 
> As you can see, death panels are real. Those who defend this are ok with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At times I watch a little tyke who has Downs, the Dr's told the parents he would not be able to walk, have all sorts of issues but he's fine with the exception he's a Downs child. He is his mommy and daddy's world. He's adorable and a happy little guy.
Click to expand...

Progressives maintain that they are monsters and should not be allowed to be born.
And they think everybody should be required to abort if there's the CHANCE of any sort of defect. It isn't just about killing babies who are imperfect..it's about forcing others to do the same. Based upon their own bigoted hatred of anything that isn't just like them. And their own stupid fear of coming face to face with humanity's imperfection. And now they can use the excuse "BUT WE'RE ALL PAYING FOR IT" to force parents to kill their own children and deny them care. 

Whereas before, they claimed that if we didn't all pay for it, babies would die. 

Nothing crazy about that.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

mdk said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any thinking and caring person would think that...you have to try
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They should have at least been given the option, even if it was a fool's hope.
Click to expand...


The babe was a pawn and it's horribly and terribly wrong how it all went down


----------



## SassyIrishLass

koshergrl said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doctors are wrong all the time, and people who are given "death sentences" and whose parents are told they will be insensible monsters prove doctors wrong all the time.
> 
> As you can see, death panels are real. Those who defend this are ok with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At times I watch a little tyke who has Downs, the Dr's told the parents he would not be able to walk, have all sorts of issues but he's fine with the exception he's a Downs child. He is his mommy and daddy's world. He's adorable and a happy little guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Progressives maintain that they are monsters and should not be allowed to be born.
> And they think everybody should be required to abort if there's the CHANCE of any sort of defect. It isn't just about killing babies who are imperfect..it's about forcing others to do the same. Based upon their own bigoted hatred of anything that isn't just like them. And their own stupid fear of coming face to face with humanity's imperfection. And now they can use the excuse "BUT WE'RE ALL PAYING FOR IT" to force parents to kill their own children and deny them care.
> 
> Whereas before, they claimed that if we didn't all pay for it, babies would die.
> 
> Nothing crazy about that.
Click to expand...


The little guy I watch doesn't know he's different, he's happy, loved and he loves. He's perfect to me.


----------



## koshergrl

Meanwhile, they still don't give a shit if human trafficking victims are cooked to death in big rigs that aren't checked at the border.


----------



## koshergrl

SassyIrishLass said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doctors are wrong all the time, and people who are given "death sentences" and whose parents are told they will be insensible monsters prove doctors wrong all the time.
> 
> As you can see, death panels are real. Those who defend this are ok with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At times I watch a little tyke who has Downs, the Dr's told the parents he would not be able to walk, have all sorts of issues but he's fine with the exception he's a Downs child. He is his mommy and daddy's world. He's adorable and a happy little guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Progressives maintain that they are monsters and should not be allowed to be born.
> And they think everybody should be required to abort if there's the CHANCE of any sort of defect. It isn't just about killing babies who are imperfect..it's about forcing others to do the same. Based upon their own bigoted hatred of anything that isn't just like them. And their own stupid fear of coming face to face with humanity's imperfection. And now they can use the excuse "BUT WE'RE ALL PAYING FOR IT" to force parents to kill their own children and deny them care.
> 
> Whereas before, they claimed that if we didn't all pay for it, babies would die.
> 
> Nothing crazy about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The little guy I watch doesn't know he's different, he's happy, loved and he loves. He's perfect to me.
Click to expand...

All children are a blessing. The concept that it's *best* to kill them is straight out of Hitler's play book. As is the idea that anybody who is different (well only some people...not sexual deviants or mentally ill adults) would be "better off dead"...as is the idea that they have the right to kill people based on their level of discomfort with the idea of another person's perceived pain. 

Hitler had the people of Germany convinced it was their duty to attack and shoot Jewish children on sight, because they were substandard. Commies the same...


----------



## bodecea

SassyIrishLass said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any thinking and caring person would think that...you have to try
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They should have at least been given the option, even if it was a fool's hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The babe was a pawn and it's horribly and terribly wrong how it all went down
Click to expand...

"The babe was a pawn"   Absolutely....and now he's a stepping stone.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

koshergrl said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doctors are wrong all the time, and people who are given "death sentences" and whose parents are told they will be insensible monsters prove doctors wrong all the time.
> 
> As you can see, death panels are real. Those who defend this are ok with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At times I watch a little tyke who has Downs, the Dr's told the parents he would not be able to walk, have all sorts of issues but he's fine with the exception he's a Downs child. He is his mommy and daddy's world. He's adorable and a happy little guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Progressives maintain that they are monsters and should not be allowed to be born.
> And they think everybody should be required to abort if there's the CHANCE of any sort of defect. It isn't just about killing babies who are imperfect..it's about forcing others to do the same. Based upon their own bigoted hatred of anything that isn't just like them. And their own stupid fear of coming face to face with humanity's imperfection. And now they can use the excuse "BUT WE'RE ALL PAYING FOR IT" to force parents to kill their own children and deny them care.
> 
> Whereas before, they claimed that if we didn't all pay for it, babies would die.
> 
> Nothing crazy about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The little guy I watch doesn't know he's different, he's happy, loved and he loves. He's perfect to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All children are a blessing. The concept that it's *best* to kill them is straight out of Hitler's play book.
> 
> Hitler had the people of Germany convinced it was their duty to attack and shoot Jewish children on sight, because they were substandard.
Click to expand...


One of the quickest ways for me to really dislike someone is be pro abortion, harm any child or turn a blind eye to a child in need. Children are precious.


----------



## koshergrl

bodecea said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any thinking and caring person would think that...you have to try
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They should have at least been given the option, even if it was a fool's hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The babe was a pawn and it's horribly and terribly wrong how it all went down
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The babe was a pawn"   Absolutely....and now he's a stepping stone.
Click to expand...

What a ghoul.

Bode thinks dead babies are a hoot. Typical of the more depraved members of the SS. 

And funny, because the SS hated women..especially dykes. Dykes got thrown into concentration camps.


----------



## Dr Grump

Tipsycatlover said:


> [
> Because Britian has universal health care people have to pull their own teeth.
> 
> Sufferers pull out teeth due to lack of dentists



Shall we compare nightmare scenarios. I could list pages (that's right plural) of similar incidents in the US....pages...


----------



## bodecea

Dr Grump said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Because Britian has universal health care people have to pull their own teeth.
> 
> Sufferers pull out teeth due to lack of dentists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shall we compare nightmare scenarios. I could list pages (that's right plural) of similar incidents in the US....pages...
Click to expand...

Somehow....if you cannot afford the health care you need in this country, you are not worthy.  Remember the cry of "Let him die!"?  That poor boy was nothing but a pawn of the trumpanzees wanting to bash the UK's health system for their own disgusting reasons.


----------



## flacaltenn

mdk said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any thinking and caring person would think that...you have to try
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They should have at least been given the option, even if it was a fool's hope.
Click to expand...


Ponder it for a minute. Having to BEG for permission to allow your child a shot at new therapy. Wasn't actually a fools hope.  At that point, you take the doctor that gives you 20%...


----------



## flacaltenn

ASSUMING -- the child won't be a vegetable and burden back on the Brit Health System..


----------



## SassyIrishLass

bodecea said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Because Britian has universal health care people have to pull their own teeth.
> 
> Sufferers pull out teeth due to lack of dentists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shall we compare nightmare scenarios. I could list pages (that's right plural) of similar incidents in the US....pages...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Somehow....if you cannot afford the health care you need in this country, you are not worthy.  Remember the cry of "Let him die!"?  That poor boy was nothing but a pawn of the trumpanzees wanting to bash the UK's health system for their own disgusting reasons.
Click to expand...


Except his parents had the money for the treatment. Gawd you're dense


----------



## Dr Grump

sassyirishlass said:


> Except his parents had the money for the treatment. Gawd you're dense



And the US specialist went to the UK and said he had between 11% and 52% of the treatment doing 'something'....


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Dr Grump said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except his parents had the money for the treatment. Gawd you're dense
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the US specialist went to the UK and said he had between 11% and 52% of the treatment doing 'something'....
Click to expand...


Ya gotta try. Wasn't costing the UK a dime so why were the parents denied even bringing him here?

The agenda, that's why. This time people are outraged, next time less outraged and so on until it's considered the norm.

They fool nobody


----------



## Dr Grump

SassyIrishLass said:


> Ya gotta try. Wasn't costing the UK a dime so why were the parents denied even bringing him here?
> 
> The agenda, that's why. This time people are outraged, next time less outraged and so on until it's considered the norm.
> 
> They fool nobody


Read the whole history. There was no agenda. Anybody who thinks health professionals have an 'agenda' in the UK, NZ, Canada or Australia do not know their systems. Unlike the US system they are not about the almighty dollar...


----------



## WillowTree

They wouldn't even let the parents take him home to die! Assholes.


----------



## bodecea

Dr Grump said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya gotta try. Wasn't costing the UK a dime so why were the parents denied even bringing him here?
> 
> The agenda, that's why. This time people are outraged, next time less outraged and so on until it's considered the norm.
> 
> They fool nobody
> 
> 
> 
> Read the whole history. There was no agenda. Anybody who thinks health professionals have an 'agenda' in the UK, NZ, Canada or Australia do not know their systems. Unlike the US system they are not about the almighty dollar...
Click to expand...

Those who now want to run down the UK health system are the ones with an agenda.  They have to do something!   Look at their incredible failure get rid of Obamacare even with control of all three branches of government.  The poor sick child was indeed a pawn......of our trumpanzees.


----------



## Political Junky

PredFan said:


> A Socialized Medicine Death Panel killed that child.


You drank the Kool-Aid.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

bodecea said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya gotta try. Wasn't costing the UK a dime so why were the parents denied even bringing him here?
> 
> The agenda, that's why. This time people are outraged, next time less outraged and so on until it's considered the norm.
> 
> They fool nobody
> 
> 
> 
> Read the whole history. There was no agenda. Anybody who thinks health professionals have an 'agenda' in the UK, NZ, Canada or Australia do not know their systems. Unlike the US system they are not about the almighty dollar...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those who now want to run down the UK health system are the ones with an agenda.  They have to do something!   Look at their incredible failure get rid of Obamacare even with control of all three branches of government.  The poor sick child was indeed a pawn......of our trumpanzees.
Click to expand...


Everything is politics to you...go away.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Dr Grump said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya gotta try. Wasn't costing the UK a dime so why were the parents denied even bringing him here?
> 
> The agenda, that's why. This time people are outraged, next time less outraged and so on until it's considered the norm.
> 
> They fool nobody
> 
> 
> 
> Read the whole history. There was no agenda. Anybody who thinks health professionals have an 'agenda' in the UK, NZ, Canada or Australia do not know their systems. Unlike the US system they are not about the almighty dollar...
Click to expand...


Hands you five katyushas, it went right over your head. Dunce


----------



## flacaltenn

Dr Grump said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya gotta try. Wasn't costing the UK a dime so why were the parents denied even bringing him here?
> 
> The agenda, that's why. This time people are outraged, next time less outraged and so on until it's considered the norm.
> 
> They fool nobody
> 
> 
> 
> Read the whole history. There was no agenda. Anybody who thinks health professionals have an 'agenda' in the UK, NZ, Canada or Australia do not know their systems. Unlike the US system they are not about the almighty dollar...
Click to expand...


No -- of course..  It's all about FAIRNESS and EQUALITY of treatment. If word got out that baby was saved, by Gawdly -- they MIGHT have other Brits demanding that Brit Heath cover the treatment. 

THAT --  would be unacceptable to the Gate Keepers..  Or should I say "Death Panel"....


----------



## flacaltenn

Political Junky said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Socialized Medicine Death Panel killed that child.
> 
> 
> 
> You drank the Kool-Aid.
Click to expand...


You're handing it out.. The KoolAid is already in our "health care system" .... THanks to your team..


----------



## Rambunctious

*DEATH PANEL..........*


----------



## 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...


----------



## LoneLaugher

Grampa Murked U said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> How sad! This case was total and complete bullshit. Fuck the courts that ruled against his parents.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just hope we don't end up with that bs here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You idiot. Do you know how many people there are who DIE in the US from shit that Brits never die from because they have universal health care? Try learning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck off nutsack
Click to expand...


Bad form in this forum, convict. Check yourself.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

We aren't used to this kind of loss of freedom.   We're used to being able to sit at the lunch counter if you can afford what's on the menu.  We aren't used to a system that doesn't care if you can afford it.   Once the government says no you can't do it no matter how much money you have.

Those days of heady freedom go out the window when socialized medicine comes through the door.


----------



## task0778

flacaltenn said:


> 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...



Sorry to hear that.   I dunno what the best answer is but I'm pretty sure it'll be the one with the least gov't intervention.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

flacaltenn said:


> 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...



That's distressing and what bothers me so much about Charlie Gard's case, they had the money and were refused to take their own child for treatment.

Something is horribly wrong


----------



## LoneLaugher

flacaltenn said:


> 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?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Apparently only lonelaugher is allowed to be a dick in this thread?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

LoneLaugher said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> How sad! This case was total and complete bullshit. Fuck the courts that ruled against his parents.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just hope we don't end up with that bs here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You idiot. Do you know how many people there are who DIE in the US from shit that Brits never die from because they have universal health care? Try learning.
Click to expand...

Fuck you.


----------



## koshergrl

Dr Grump said:


> sassyirishlass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except his parents had the money for the treatment. Gawd you're dense
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the US specialist went to the UK and said he had between 11% and 52% of the treatment doing 'something'....
Click to expand...

Those sound like pretty good odds to me.


----------



## 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


----------



## Markle

ph3iron said:


> Such stupidity. The kid was brain dead for gods sake.
> And how many abortions and birth control pills have you taken pray tell.
> Zero sex ? Hilarious to be so supercilious



Not surprised at all that you miss the point entirely.

I believe that Charlie Gard should have been allowed to pass peacefully weeks ago.  There was no hope, none whatsoever.

*HOWEVER*, that was a decision for the PARENTS NOT THE GOVERNMENT.  How on God's green earth is it a good thing for GOVERNMENT to make medical, life and death decisions for the citizens rather than the citizens themselves?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Coyote said:


> 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


Just like you all use shooting victims to rail against gun rights.

Be careful you might fall of that pedestal


----------



## MindWars

Wait until that medical tyranny comes to the US. These sheep haven't a clue what is coming if Trump can't stop it.  It will be nicely intertwined in Obamacare.  The state will own your kids they already to on many levels. 
Wait until your kid has to die at the hands of a court.


----------



## MindWars

*MEDICAL TYRANNY IS HERE, AND WE CAN’T SAY WE WEREN’T WARNED*
*A Minnesota mother was recently brought to court over refusing chemotherapy for her 8 year old daughter. A doctor apparently reported her to CPS. She was “…ordered into court and told if they did not work with them on a treatment plan, they would lose custody of Sarah.”


*

Medical Tyranny is Here, and We Can’t Say We Weren’t Warned


----------



## Markle

LoneLaugher said:


> You idiot. Do you know how many people there are who DIE in the US from shit that Brits never die from because they have universal health care? Try learning.



Totally false.  Making it worse is that you know it is false.


----------



## koshergrl

MindWars said:


> *MEDICAL TYRANNY IS HERE, AND WE CAN’T SAY WE WEREN’T WARNED*
> *A Minnesota mother was recently brought to court over refusing chemotherapy for her 8 year old daughter. A doctor apparently reported her to CPS. She was “…ordered into court and told if they did not work with them on a treatment plan, they would lose custody of Sarah.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Medical Tyranny is Here, and We Can’t Say We Weren’t Warned


Yeah fuck that shit. Oregon caseworkers have been told in no uncertain terms that they CANNOT seize kids from the hospital or for bullshit like this.


----------



## MindWars

koshergrl said:


> MindWars said:
> 
> 
> 
> *MEDICAL TYRANNY IS HERE, AND WE CAN’T SAY WE WEREN’T WARNED*
> *A Minnesota mother was recently brought to court over refusing chemotherapy for her 8 year old daughter. A doctor apparently reported her to CPS. She was “…ordered into court and told if they did not work with them on a treatment plan, they would lose custody of Sarah.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Medical Tyranny is Here, and We Can’t Say We Weren’t Warned
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah fuck that shit. Oregon caseworkers have been told in no uncertain terms that they CANNOT seize kids from the hospital or for bullshit like this.
Click to expand...


Yeah and that case was back in 2012 Oh go figure shit stain was President. No surprise there.

The United States is in fact an Orwellian Tyranny that merely chooses not to implement full tyrannical measures. It only makes this decision because it does not yet have sufficient power to completely control the masses, i.e. we have not been made sufficiently docile, nor sufficiently dumbed down, fattened, sickened, and disarmed. When the government does have that power, and it will soon enough, it may then be too late to effectively resist.

The United States Is In Fact An Orwellian Tyranny


----------



## Coyote

Grampa Murked U said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> Just like you all use shooting victims to rail against gun rights.
> 
> Be careful you might fall of that pedestal
Click to expand...

I don't. Stereotype much?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Coyote said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> Just like you all use shooting victims to rail against gun rights.
> 
> Be careful you might fall of that pedestal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't. Stereotype much?
Click to expand...

I didn't do anything YOU just didn't do so you know what you can do with your hypocrisy


----------



## Coyote

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


----------



## Coyote

Grampa Murked U said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> Just like you all use shooting victims to rail against gun rights.
> 
> Be careful you might fall of that pedestal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't. Stereotype much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't do anything YOU just didn't do so you know what you can do with your hypocrisy
Click to expand...

The same thing you can do with yours?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Coyote said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> Just like you all use shooting victims to rail against gun rights.
> 
> Be careful you might fall of that pedestal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't. Stereotype much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't do anything YOU just didn't do so you know what you can do with your hypocrisy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The same thing you can do with yours?
Click to expand...

I'm not the one who called you out for stereotyping so how the hell does that make me a hypocrite? 

Christ


----------



## Death Angel

LoneLaugher said:


> Man. You try hard sometimes. Don't worry, bro. You are so cool that all of us love you. You don't have to appease the idiots.
> 
> That baby had a terminal illness which resulted in his life being one of unending suffering. Nothing could have saved him. His passing may be the best thing that ever happened to him.


Thank you for proving koshergrl's assessment. That didn't take long.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Death Angel said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man. You try hard sometimes. Don't worry, bro. You are so cool that all of us love you. You don't have to appease the idiots.
> 
> That baby had a terminal illness which resulted in his life being one of unending suffering. Nothing could have saved him. His passing may be the best thing that ever happened to him.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving koshergrl's assessment. That didn't take long.
Click to expand...

I HATE to defend lone but I have not seen anyone celebrating this poor child's death. 
Take your emotional goggles off and reread the posts.

I have no doubt that EVERYONE on this site feels pity & sadness for the parents & the child.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Markle said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You idiot. Do you know how many people there are who DIE in the US from shit that Brits never die from because they have universal health care? Try learning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Totally false.  Making it worse is that you know it is false.
Click to expand...


Go on. Tell me what I know.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

koshergrl said:


> This is a day of celebration among the death cultists! Baby killers, rejoice!



The globalists are happy that the human waste as they see it won't be draining their coffers. I'm sure they get a bit of a kick about sending people to their deaths, too.


----------



## HenryBHough

Nationalized Health Care kills.

We knew that but, sadly, I guess we do need an occasional reminder.


----------



## Death Angel

Grampa Murked U said:


> I HATE to defend lone but I have not seen anyone celebrating this poor child's death


He JUST DID in the post I responded to.

"The baby is BETTER OFF DEAD."

That is celebrating his death.

That is a libturd  denying a parent the chance to seek help.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Death Angel said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> I HATE to defend lone but I have not seen anyone celebrating this poor child's death
> 
> 
> 
> He JUST DID in the post I responded to.
> 
> "The baby is BETTER OFF DEAD."
> 
> That is celebrating his death.
> 
> That is a libturd  denying a parent the chance to seek help.
Click to expand...

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.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

I beginning to think some do not know the definition of celebration. 

Webster's, find one.


----------



## Markle

AvgGuyIA said:


> Well the .leftists got their fitst post birth legal abortion. They will claim their is precedent to abort babies up to one year of age.
> 
> Think not? It's coming.



Petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama's Science Czar, John Holdren had written in the 1970's that in order to control population, forced sterilization, forced abortion and that infants up to two years old could be "aborted".  

Big Dogs Weblog   » infanticide excerpt below: ...

*John Holdren, a Harvard University Professor (aren’t they all), who has advocated in the past that it would be okay to abort an infant up to two years old.* That’s right, kill babies. His reasoning is that until the baby can realize that there’s a tomorrow, the baby is not really human. He also has postulated that sterilants (birth control drugs) should be added to the water we drink, on the grounds that there are already too many people, and certainly too many of the wrong kind, whatever that is supposed to mean. 

www.mylot.com/post/2080901/0bama-science-czar-ok-to-kill-toddlers

This is the goal of Progressives.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Markle said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the .leftists got their fitst post birth legal abortion. They will claim their is precedent to abort babies up to one year of age.
> 
> Think not? It's coming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama's Science Czar, John Holdren had written in the 1970's that in order to control population, forced sterilization, forced abortion and that infants up to two years old could be "aborted".
> 
> Big Dogs Weblog   » infanticide excerpt below: ...
> 
> *John Holdren, a Harvard University Professor (aren’t they all), who has advocated in the past that it would be okay to abort an infant up to two years old.* That’s right, kill babies. His reasoning is that until the baby can realize that there’s a tomorrow, the baby is not really human. He also has postulated that sterilants (birth control drugs) should be added to the water we drink, on the grounds that there are already too many people, and certainly too many of the wrong kind, whatever that is supposed to mean.
> 
> www.mylot.com/post/2080901/0bama-science-czar-ok-to-kill-toddlers
> 
> This is the goal of Progressives.
Click to expand...


I have a newsflash for the professor, you kill a child it's not abortion, it's murder.

Sick bastard needs "aborted'


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> 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.


----------



## koshergrl

Markle said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the .leftists got their fitst post birth legal abortion. They will claim their is precedent to abort babies up to one year of age.
> 
> Think not? It's coming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama's Science Czar, John Holdren had written in the 1970's that in order to control population, forced sterilization, forced abortion and that infants up to two years old could be "aborted".
> 
> Big Dogs Weblog   » infanticide excerpt below: ...
> 
> *John Holdren, a Harvard University Professor (aren’t they all), who has advocated in the past that it would be okay to abort an infant up to two years old.* That’s right, kill babies. His reasoning is that until the baby can realize that there’s a tomorrow, the baby is not really human. He also has postulated that sterilants (birth control drugs) should be added to the water we drink, on the grounds that there are already too many people, and certainly too many of the wrong kind, whatever that is supposed to mean.
> 
> www.mylot.com/post/2080901/0bama-science-czar-ok-to-kill-toddlers
> 
> This is the goal of Progressives.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. 
That is absolutely 100 percent what they are about. It's the same thing they were about when they taught the Nazis how to be monsters.


----------



## Coyote

MindWars said:


> *MEDICAL TYRANNY IS HERE, AND WE CAN’T SAY WE WEREN’T WARNED*
> *A Minnesota mother was recently brought to court over refusing chemotherapy for her 8 year old daughter. A doctor apparently reported her to CPS. She was “…ordered into court and told if they did not work with them on a treatment plan, they would lose custody of Sarah.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Medical Tyranny is Here, and We Can’t Say We Weren’t Warned



When does it become child abuse?


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


What if parents deny life saving treatment for their child?


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> MindWars said:
> 
> 
> 
> *MEDICAL TYRANNY IS HERE, AND WE CAN’T SAY WE WEREN’T WARNED*
> *A Minnesota mother was recently brought to court over refusing chemotherapy for her 8 year old daughter. A doctor apparently reported her to CPS. She was “…ordered into court and told if they did not work with them on a treatment plan, they would lose custody of Sarah.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Medical Tyranny is Here, and We Can’t Say We Weren’t Warned
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When does it become child abuse?
Click to expand...

When some stupid,  mentally ill statist bitch has a bad day and goes after someone.


----------



## Political Junky

SassyIrishLass said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the .leftists got their fitst post birth legal abortion. They will claim their is precedent to abort babies up to one year of age.
> 
> Think not? It's coming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama's Science Czar, John Holdren had written in the 1970's that in order to control population, forced sterilization, forced abortion and that infants up to two years old could be "aborted".
> 
> Big Dogs Weblog   » infanticide excerpt below: ...
> 
> *John Holdren, a Harvard University Professor (aren’t they all), who has advocated in the past that it would be okay to abort an infant up to two years old.* That’s right, kill babies. His reasoning is that until the baby can realize that there’s a tomorrow, the baby is not really human. He also has postulated that sterilants (birth control drugs) should be added to the water we drink, on the grounds that there are already too many people, and certainly too many of the wrong kind, whatever that is supposed to mean.
> 
> www.mylot.com/post/2080901/0bama-science-czar-ok-to-kill-toddlers
> 
> This is the goal of Progressives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a newsflash for the professor, you kill a child it's not abortion, it's murder.
> 
> Sick bastard needs "aborted'
Click to expand...

They removed life support. It happens often.


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if parents deny life saving treatment for their child?
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Death Angel

Coyote said:


> What if parents deny life saving treatment for their child?


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


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Political Junky said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the .leftists got their fitst post birth legal abortion. They will claim their is precedent to abort babies up to one year of age.
> 
> Think not? It's coming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama's Science Czar, John Holdren had written in the 1970's that in order to control population, forced sterilization, forced abortion and that infants up to two years old could be "aborted".
> 
> Big Dogs Weblog   » infanticide excerpt below: ...
> 
> *John Holdren, a Harvard University Professor (aren’t they all), who has advocated in the past that it would be okay to abort an infant up to two years old.* That’s right, kill babies. His reasoning is that until the baby can realize that there’s a tomorrow, the baby is not really human. He also has postulated that sterilants (birth control drugs) should be added to the water we drink, on the grounds that there are already too many people, and certainly too many of the wrong kind, whatever that is supposed to mean.
> 
> www.mylot.com/post/2080901/0bama-science-czar-ok-to-kill-toddlers
> 
> This is the goal of Progressives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a newsflash for the professor, you kill a child it's not abortion, it's murder.
> 
> Sick bastard needs "aborted'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They removed life support. It happens often.
Click to expand...


I was responding to the professor advocating "aborting" children up to age two.

Get up to speed and then comment


----------



## Coyote

Is this parental rights or child abuse? 

Letting them die: parents refuse medical help for children in the name of Christ


----------



## koshergrl

Political Junky said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the .leftists got their fitst post birth legal abortion. They will claim their is precedent to abort babies up to one year of age.
> 
> Think not? It's coming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama's Science Czar, John Holdren had written in the 1970's that in order to control population, forced sterilization, forced abortion and that infants up to two years old could be "aborted".
> 
> Big Dogs Weblog   » infanticide excerpt below: ...
> 
> *John Holdren, a Harvard University Professor (aren’t they all), who has advocated in the past that it would be okay to abort an infant up to two years old.* That’s right, kill babies. His reasoning is that until the baby can realize that there’s a tomorrow, the baby is not really human. He also has postulated that sterilants (birth control drugs) should be added to the water we drink, on the grounds that there are already too many people, and certainly too many of the wrong kind, whatever that is supposed to mean.
> 
> www.mylot.com/post/2080901/0bama-science-czar-ok-to-kill-toddlers
> 
> This is the goal of Progressives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a newsflash for the professor, you kill a child it's not abortion, it's murder.
> 
> Sick bastard needs "aborted'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They removed life support. It happens often.
Click to expand...


Sorry, you don't get to just remove the life support of anybody who happens to temporarily be dependent upon it, you sick fuck.


----------



## Coyote

Death Angel said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if parents deny life saving treatment for their child?
> 
> 
> 
> What if a GOVERNMENT denies life saving treatment for your child?
Click to expand...


Example?


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> Is this parental rights or child abuse?
> 
> Letting them die: parents refuse medical help for children in the name of Christ


That is a sick, mentally ill girl who is being used by the state to harass her parents. 

A statist bitch had a bad day. And here we are years later. 

She's probably placed this girl with foster parents who she knows personally. People she sets up with a tidy little monthly sum. 

It's a sick and perverted system. I know because I've been working in it for decades.


----------



## Markle

Grampa Murked U said:


> 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?


----------



## PredFan

Political Junky said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Socialized Medicine Death Panel killed that child.
> 
> 
> 
> You drank the Kool-Aid.
Click to expand...


Shut up dumbass, it's the absolute truth.


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if parents deny life saving treatment for their child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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?


----------



## PredFan

LoneLaugher said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> How sad! This case was total and complete bullshit. Fuck the courts that ruled against his parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man. You try hard sometimes. Don't worry, bro. You are so cool that all of us love you. You don't have to appease the idiots.
> 
> That baby had a terminal illness which resulted in his life being one of unending suffering. Nothing could have saved him. His passing may be the best thing that ever happened to him.
Click to expand...


That's the lie you tell yourself. Truth is, the US could have given him a chance.


----------



## PredFan

LoneLaugher said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> How sad! This case was total and complete bullshit. Fuck the courts that ruled against his parents.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just hope we don't end up with that bs here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You idiot. Do you know how many people there are who DIE in the US from shit that Brits never die from because they have universal health care? Try learning.
Click to expand...


Name one thing, liar.


----------



## Markle

koshergrl said:


> Meanwhile, they still don't give a shit if human trafficking victims are cooked to death in big rigs that aren't checked at the border.



Who are "they"?


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this parental rights or child abuse?
> 
> Letting them die: parents refuse medical help for children in the name of Christ
> 
> 
> 
> That is a sick, mentally ill girl who is being used by the state to harass her parents.
> 
> A statist bitch had a bad day. And here we are years later.
> 
> She's probably placed this girl with foster parents who she knows personally. People she sets up with a tidy little monthly sum.
> 
> It's a sick and perverted system. I know because I've been working in it for decades.
Click to expand...




koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this parental rights or child abuse?
> 
> Letting them die: parents refuse medical help for children in the name of Christ
> 
> 
> 
> That is a sick, mentally ill girl who is being used by the state to harass her parents.
> 
> A statist bitch had a bad day. And here we are years later.
> 
> She's probably placed this girl with foster parents who she knows personally. People she sets up with a tidy little monthly sum.
> 
> It's a sick and perverted system. I know because I've been working in it for decades.
Click to expand...


She is only one example, there are more in the articles.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if parents deny life saving treatment for their child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


I've never really undetstood why a parent would do that, I undetstand certain religions go by it but I could never do it. 

The vaccine thing is another one I see articles on.


----------



## PredFan

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


----------



## SassyIrishLass

PredFan said:


> 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


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if parents deny life saving treatment for their child?
> 
> 
> 
> What if a GOVERNMENT denies life saving treatment for your child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Example?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you fucking retarded?
> Did you forget the title of this thread?
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Markle

Dr Grump said:


> And the US specialist went to the UK and said he had between 11% and 52% of the treatment doing 'something'....



Something...well that's quite a goal!  What constitutes "something"?


----------



## flacaltenn

LoneLaugher said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


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

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if parents deny life saving treatment for their child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


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

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if parents deny life saving treatment for their child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Look at some of the examples in the article.


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at some of the examples in the article.
Click to expand...

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

Coyote said:


> 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

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at some of the examples in the article.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at some of the examples in the article.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think any of those cases constitute child abuse?
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Markle

Coyote said:


> 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

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

Markle said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

Markle said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Political Junky

Markle said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

Markle said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...

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

SassyIrishLass said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


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

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if parents deny life saving treatment for their child?
> 
> 
> 
> What if a GOVERNMENT denies life saving treatment for your child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Example?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you fucking retarded?
> Did you forget the title of this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gubmint didn't deny it. The courts did. The treatment also wasn't life saving.
Click to expand...


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

Political Junky said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't want Mr. Schiavo to decide his wife's fate.
Click to expand...

You mean after he knocked up his mistress?


----------



## flacaltenn

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


It was a Death Panel. The decision was political.


----------



## PredFan

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## koshergrl

Tipsycatlover said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


My niece is a doctor. She says doctors aren't donors, btw. They don't want another doctor deciding they aren't worth saving.


----------



## PredFan

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Name a case where medical treatment by doctors was child abuse.


----------



## flacaltenn

PredFan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name a case where medical treatment by doctors was child abuse.
Click to expand...


THere are case where parents opt for NO treatment -- which CAN turn into child abuse disputes. But it's rare the other way around. UNLESS the treatment is so quacky, it can't even be RESEARCHED in the literature.


----------



## PredFan

flacaltenn said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name a case where medical treatment by doctors was child abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THere are case where parents opt for NO treatment -- which CAN turn into child abuse disputes. But it's rare the other way around. UNLESS the treatment is so quacky, it can't even be RESEARCHED in the literature.
Click to expand...


She stated that there could be cases where medical treatment was child abuse. She's a liar.


----------



## Markle

LoneLaugher said:


> Go on. Tell me what I know.



If you do not, you are spouting off without having the benefit of knowing what you are talking about.

You claim that patients in Britain receive superior care than those in the United States.

How does that work when you can't see a physician in Britain for months or even YEARS?

*Hospital waiting lists at seven-year high as 3.4m need treatment: More than 6,000 forced to wait at least a year for operations *

*6,100 patients forced to wait at least a year for an operation*
*In the worse cases, patients have a three year wait for treatment*
*Up to one in seven hospital procedures are unnecessary, according to the medical director of NHS England*
By Sophie Borland for the Daily Mail

PUBLISHED: 19:31 EDT, 12 July 2015 | UPDATED: 01:31 EDT, 13 July 2015

Almost 3.4million patients are languishing on NHS waiting lists – the highest number in seven years.

They include more than 6,100 forced to wait at least a year for operations or treatment. In the worst examples the delay has been nearly three years.

The numbers are the highest since January 2008 and show the extent to which hospitals are struggling to meet the needs of the growing, ageing population.

Experts said the waits of weeks or months were extremely distressing for patients, some of whom are in considerable pain.

Almost 3.4million patients are languishing on NHS waiting lists – the highest number in seven years.

They include more than 6,100 forced to wait at least a year for operations or treatment. In the worst examples the delay has been nearly three years.

The numbers are the highest since January 2008 and show the extent to which hospitals are struggling to meet the needs of the growing, ageing population.

Experts said the waits of weeks or months were extremely distressing for patients, some of whom are in considerable pain.

Read more: NHS hospital waiting lists at seven-year high as 3.4m need treatment | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Coyote

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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...
Click to expand...


I'm not getting the same take on it.  Looking at what wiki wrote, and two sources it links to, there appears to be a lot more to it.

Great Ormond Street Hospital v Yates & Ors [2017] EWHC 972 (Fam) (11 April 2017)

[2006] 2 FLR 319. He said as follows: 

* "(i) As a dispute has arisen between the treating doctors and the parents, and one, and now both, parties have asked the court to make a decision, it is the role and duty of the court to do so and to exercise its own independent and objective judgment.*

(ii) The right and power of the court to do so only arises because the patient, in this case because he is a child, lacks the capacity to make a decision for himself.

(iii) I am not deciding what decision I might make for myself if I was, hypothetically, in the situation of the patient; nor for a child of my own if in that situation; nor whether the respective decisions of the doctors on the one hand or the parents on the other are reasonable decisions.

(iv) The matter must be decided by the application of an objective approach or test.

(v) That test is the best interests of the patient. Best interests are used in the widest sense and include every kind of consideration capable of impacting on the decision. These include, non-exhaustively, medical, emotional, sensory (pleasure, pain and suffering) and instinctive (the human instinct to survive) considerations.

(vi) It is impossible to weigh such considerations mathematically, but the court must do the best it can to balance all the conflicting considerations in a particular case and see where the final balance of the best interests lies.

(vii) Considerable weight (Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR referred to 'a very strong presumption') must be attached to the prolongation of life because the individual human instinct and desire to survive is strong and must be presumed to be strong in the patient. But it is not absolute, nor necessarily decisive; and may be outweighed if the pleasures and the quality of life are sufficiently small and the pain and suffering or other burdens of living are sufficiently great.

(viii) These considerations remain well expressed in the words as relatively long ago now as 1991 of Lord Donaldson of Lymington in _Re J (A minor) (wardship: medical treatment)_ [1991] Fam 33 at page 46 where he said:



.',


----------



## koshergrl

flacaltenn said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name a case where medical treatment by doctors was child abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THere are case where parents opt for NO treatment -- which CAN turn into child abuse disputes. But it's rare the other way around. UNLESS the treatment is so quacky, it can't even be RESEARCHED in the literature.
Click to expand...

If only the workers would exert this sort of energy to remove kids from families that really are abusive. 

They don't.


----------



## Markle

SassyIrishLass said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the .leftists got their fitst post birth legal abortion. They will claim their is precedent to abort babies up to one year of age.
> 
> Think not? It's coming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama's Science Czar, John Holdren had written in the 1970's that in order to control population, forced sterilization, forced abortion and that infants up to two years old could be "aborted".
> 
> Big Dogs Weblog   » infanticide excerpt below: ...
> 
> *John Holdren, a Harvard University Professor (aren’t they all), who has advocated in the past that it would be okay to abort an infant up to two years old.* That’s right, kill babies. His reasoning is that until the baby can realize that there’s a tomorrow, the baby is not really human. He also has postulated that sterilants (birth control drugs) should be added to the water we drink, on the grounds that there are already too many people, and certainly too many of the wrong kind, whatever that is supposed to mean.
> 
> www.mylot.com/post/2080901/0bama-science-czar-ok-to-kill-toddlers
> 
> This is the goal of Progressives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a newsflash for the professor, you kill a child it's not abortion, it's murder.
> 
> Sick bastard needs "aborted'
Click to expand...


John Holdren's terminology, not mine.

Ezekiel Emmanual, brother of former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanual had also written extensively about drastically limiting health care for people younger than 18, more limited for those under 10 or 12 and for those over 70.  His reasoning is that they have little or nothing to contribute to society and money should not be wasted on them.


----------



## Coyote

PredFan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name a case where medical treatment by doctors was child abuse.
Click to expand...

I wasn't thinking about doctors so much as treatment by quacks land non-doctors.


----------



## PredFan

Markle said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the .leftists got their fitst post birth legal abortion. They will claim their is precedent to abort babies up to one year of age.
> 
> Think not? It's coming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama's Science Czar, John Holdren had written in the 1970's that in order to control population, forced sterilization, forced abortion and that infants up to two years old could be "aborted".
> 
> Big Dogs Weblog   » infanticide excerpt below: ...
> 
> *John Holdren, a Harvard University Professor (aren’t they all), who has advocated in the past that it would be okay to abort an infant up to two years old.* That’s right, kill babies. His reasoning is that until the baby can realize that there’s a tomorrow, the baby is not really human. He also has postulated that sterilants (birth control drugs) should be added to the water we drink, on the grounds that there are already too many people, and certainly too many of the wrong kind, whatever that is supposed to mean.
> 
> www.mylot.com/post/2080901/0bama-science-czar-ok-to-kill-toddlers
> 
> This is the goal of Progressives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a newsflash for the professor, you kill a child it's not abortion, it's murder.
> 
> Sick bastard needs "aborted'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> John Holdren's terminology, not mine.
> 
> Ezekiel Emmanual, brother of former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanual had also written extensively about drastically limiting health care for people younger than 18, more limited for those under 10 or 12 and for those over 70.  His reasoning is that they have little or nothing to contribute to society and money should not be wasted on them.
Click to expand...


This will be the mantra within 10 years of socialized medicine in this country.


----------



## flacaltenn

Coyote said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name a case where medical treatment by doctors was child abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't thinking about doctors so much as treatment by quacks land non-doctors.
Click to expand...


Doctors argue treatment plans all the time. It doesn't end up in court.. I've spent my time working in hospitals with the equipment we've designed. It's SCARY to hear the actual debates that the patients never hear.

That's why nurses all become so cynical about doctors I guess...


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name a case where medical treatment by doctors was child abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't thinking about doctors so much as treatment by quacks land non-doctors.
Click to expand...

Oh..abortionists?


----------



## PredFan

I remember back in the early days of my practice, I watched the doctors go to the courts to get them to override a Jehovah's Witness parent's refusal to allow their child to receive blood.

It hasn't happened in a long time, why? Because rather than hassle with that and alienate parents (customers), we changed the way we practice and lo and behold, we were giving blood unnescessarily the whole time. Nowadays outside of surgery, its rare.

Here in the US, we care about our patients as a whole person, not just a disease, or a liver, or a set of lungs. That's why we have the best healthcare system in the world.


----------



## Markle

Political Junky said:


> They removed life support. It happens often.



True, but that is not the issue.

It is not the government who makes that decision.  It is the patient, family and/or doctors, not congress.


----------



## Markle

PredFan said:


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



My guess is that it would have established a precedent of their patients coming to the United States for treatment either unavailable or the waiting list is too long.


----------



## Markle

Coyote said:


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



The courts were upholding the laws and regulations of the NHS.  What else do you think courts rule on, a whim?


----------



## Political Junky

Markle said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go on. Tell me what I know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you do not, you are spouting off without having the benefit of knowing what you are talking about.
> 
> You claim that patients in Britain receive superior care than those in the United States.
> 
> How does that work when you can't see a physician in Britain for months or even YEARS?
> 
> *Hospital waiting lists at seven-year high as 3.4m need treatment: More than 6,000 forced to wait at least a year for operations *
> 
> *6,100 patients forced to wait at least a year for an operation*
> *In the worse cases, patients have a three year wait for treatment*
> *Up to one in seven hospital procedures are unnecessary, according to the medical director of NHS England*
> By Sophie Borland for the Daily Mail
> 
> PUBLISHED: 19:31 EDT, 12 July 2015 | UPDATED: 01:31 EDT, 13 July 2015
> 
> Almost 3.4million patients are languishing on NHS waiting lists – the highest number in seven years.
> 
> They include more than 6,100 forced to wait at least a year for operations or treatment. In the worst examples the delay has been nearly three years.
> 
> The numbers are the highest since January 2008 and show the extent to which hospitals are struggling to meet the needs of the growing, ageing population.
> 
> Experts said the waits of weeks or months were extremely distressing for patients, some of whom are in considerable pain.
> 
> Almost 3.4million patients are languishing on NHS waiting lists – the highest number in seven years.
> 
> They include more than 6,100 forced to wait at least a year for operations or treatment. In the worst examples the delay has been nearly three years.
> 
> The numbers are the highest since January 2008 and show the extent to which hospitals are struggling to meet the needs of the growing, ageing population.
> 
> Experts said the waits of weeks or months were extremely distressing for patients, some of whom are in considerable pain.
> 
> Read more: NHS hospital waiting lists at seven-year high as 3.4m need treatment | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...

For elective surgery, perhaps.
One waits in the US for elective surgery, too.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Dr Grump said:


> sassyirishlass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except his parents had the money for the treatment. Gawd you're dense
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the US specialist went to the UK and said he had between 11% and 52% of the treatment doing 'something'....
Click to expand...



It's better than no hope.


No?


Why do you leftys promote death over life?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Charlie is in a great place now, the shortest time of his life on Earth he started a discussion..

He became a United States citizen..he touched everyone including the pope..

Now what do we do with this argument, ignore it let it fade away or do something about it.


----------



## IsaacNewton

20,000 children died around the world yesterday. 20,000 more tomorrow and every day after that. 

But conservatives look for deaths they can use for political purposes. The rest are ignored.


----------



## JoeB131

koshergrl said:


> This is a day of celebration among the death cultists! Baby killers, rejoice!



That baby died months ago... That they were using artificial means to keep its corpse alive is irrelevant. 



PredFan said:


> A Socialized Medicine Death Panel killed that child.



Um, no, an incurable genetic disease killed that child.  One a private insurance company would have cut the parents off a long time ago on.


----------



## WinterBorn

PredFan said:


> A Socialized Medicine Death Panel killed that child.



What?  Do you actually believe that For Profit health insurance companies would have paid millions for experimental treatments??    REally?

THis is a tragedy.   But the tragedy is the health & death of that baby.   Not the political system you favor.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

The tragedy is that someone could pay for medical treatment and was prohibited from paying their child's care.

If this was a for profit medical insurance company that refused to pay for experimental treatment and the family raised the money to pay out of pocket,  the insurance company would not stop them.   That alone makes private insurance better than socialized medicine.


----------



## koshergrl

bear513 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sassyirishlass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except his parents had the money for the treatment. Gawd you're dense
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the US specialist went to the UK and said he had between 11% and 52% of the treatment doing 'something'....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's better than no hope.
> 
> 
> No?
> 
> 
> Why do you leftys promote death over life?
Click to expand...

Because they're monsters.


----------



## PredFan

JoeB131 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a day of celebration among the death cultists! Baby killers, rejoice!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That baby died months ago... That they were using artificial means to keep its corpse alive is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Socialized Medicine Death Panel killed that child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no, an incurable genetic disease killed that child.  One a private insurance company would have cut the parents off a long time ago on.
Click to expand...


Irrelevant. He would have received care in this country and probably not charged. Medical scientists looking to cure diseases most commonly absorb the costs. Insurance and whether they would pay is irrelevant, and the disease may be incurable, but it is not untreatable and may not be an automatic death sentence.

Yes, a Socialized Medicine Death Panel indeed killed that child.


----------



## PredFan

WinterBorn said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Socialized Medicine Death Panel killed that child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?  Do you actually believe that For Profit health insurance companies would have paid millions for experimental treatments??    REally?
> 
> THis is a tragedy.   But the tragedy is the health & death of that baby.   Not the political system you favor.
Click to expand...


No. Experimental treatments are free to the patient the vast majority of the time. 

The tragedy is the Socialized Medicine Death Panel that cared more about politics than about the life of a child.


----------



## PredFan

Tipsycatlover said:


> The tragedy is that someone could pay for medical treatment and was prohibited from paying their child's care.
> 
> If this was a for profit medical insurance company that refused to pay for experimental treatment and the family raised the money to pay out of pocket,  the insurance company would not stop them.   That alone makes private insurance better than socialized medicine.



I did not know that the parents were able to pay. That makes this even more of an outrage than before.


----------



## PredFan

I recently qualified to have a hernia repaired for free, to test an experimental drug and treatment designed to shorten recovery time.

Did not cost me or my insurance company one cent.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

PredFan said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tragedy is that someone could pay for medical treatment and was prohibited from paying their child's care.
> 
> If this was a for profit medical insurance company that refused to pay for experimental treatment and the family raised the money to pay out of pocket,  the insurance company would not stop them.   That alone makes private insurance better than socialized medicine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not know that the parents were able to pay. That makes this even more of an outrage than before.
Click to expand...


The parents raised 1.3 million dollars to pay for travel, medical care and living expenses during the course of treatment.  Maybe the government will confiscate the money and redistribute it to the "poor".


----------



## koshergrl

PredFan said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tragedy is that someone could pay for medical treatment and was prohibited from paying their child's care.
> 
> If this was a for profit medical insurance company that refused to pay for experimental treatment and the family raised the money to pay out of pocket,  the insurance company would not stop them.   That alone makes private insurance better than socialized medicine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not know that the parents were able to pay. That makes this even more of an outrage than before.
Click to expand...

They raised the money using GoFundMe for the express purpose of getting this treatment.


----------



## koshergrl

Tipsycatlover said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tragedy is that someone could pay for medical treatment and was prohibited from paying their child's care.
> 
> If this was a for profit medical insurance company that refused to pay for experimental treatment and the family raised the money to pay out of pocket,  the insurance company would not stop them.   That alone makes private insurance better than socialized medicine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not know that the parents were able to pay. That makes this even more of an outrage than before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The parents raised 1.3 million dollars to pay for travel, medical care and living expenses during the course of treatment.  Maybe the government will confiscate the money and redistribute it to the "poor".
Click to expand...

Or just charge the parents with a crime for daring to raise the money.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

A cruel and ignorant campaign | MelaniePhillips.com

Shameful that this childs plight has been hijcked by axe grinders. Their "concerns" are politically driven and of course the facts cant get in the way.
By the way what a great advert for American health care the US "expert" was.  Travelling all that way in pursuit of the £1.5m.
This article is pretty much on the nail and I am no fan of Ms Phillips.


----------



## PredFan

Tipsycatlover said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tragedy is that someone could pay for medical treatment and was prohibited from paying their child's care.
> 
> If this was a for profit medical insurance company that refused to pay for experimental treatment and the family raised the money to pay out of pocket,  the insurance company would not stop them.   That alone makes private insurance better than socialized medicine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not know that the parents were able to pay. That makes this even more of an outrage than before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The parents raised 1.3 million dollars to pay for travel, medical care and living expenses during the course of treatment.  Maybe the government will confiscate the money and redistribute it to the "poor".
Click to expand...


Unbelievable. What a gross abuse of power. Welcome to Socialized medicine.


----------



## PredFan

Tommy Tainant said:


> A cruel and ignorant campaign | MelaniePhillips.com
> 
> Shameful that this childs plight has been hijcked by axe grinders. Their "concerns" are politically driven and of course the facts cant get in the way.
> By the way what a great advert for American health care the US "expert" was.  Travelling all that way in pursuit of the £1.5m.
> This article is pretty much on the nail and I am no fan of Ms Phillips.



Oh look! A globalist progressive defends the Socialized Medicine Death Panel. It is irrelevant to reality.


----------



## Dr Grump

SassyIrishLass said:


> Hands you five katyushas, it went right over your head. Dunce



Looks like me pointing out your Chicken Littling alarmist pap went over yours. Brain Surgeon.


----------



## Dr Grump

flacaltenn said:


> [
> 
> No -- of course..  It's all about FAIRNESS and EQUALITY of treatment. If word got out that baby was saved, by Gawdly -- they MIGHT have other Brits demanding that Brit Heath cover the treatment.
> 
> THAT --  would be unacceptable to the Gate Keepers..  Or should I say "Death Panel"....


Saved from what? Are you a doctor?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Dr Grump said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the whole history. There was no agenda. Anybody who thinks health professionals have an 'agenda' in the UK, NZ, Canada or Australia do not know their systems. Unlike the US system they are not about the almighty dollar...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hands you five katyushas, it went right over your head. Dunce
Click to expand...


Looks like me pointing out your Chicken Littling alarmist pap went over yours. Brain Surgeon.[/QUOTE]

Hands you another five katyushas.


----------



## Dr Grump

bear513 said:


> It's better than no hope.
> 
> No?
> 
> Why do you leftys promote death over life?



No, nobody knows. I trust the health professionals. You don't. That's on you. I bet you are one of these people that would pay thousands of dollars for one of those miracle Mexican cancer cures...


----------



## Dr Grump

koshergrl said:


> Because they're monsters.



Go educate your ignorant, Deplorable arse before commentating. You have no idea.


----------



## Dr Grump

SassyIrishLass said:


> Hands you another five katyushas.



Says the moron who can't even use the quote function properly. I think this thread is above your pay grade.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Dr Grump said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hands you another five katyushas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the moron who can't even use the quote function properly. I think this thread is above your pay grade.
Click to expand...


I started this thread, moron.

Take your socialised medicine and health care and stick it up your socialist ass.


----------



## flacaltenn

Dr Grump said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> No -- of course..  It's all about FAIRNESS and EQUALITY of treatment. If word got out that baby was saved, by Gawdly -- they MIGHT have other Brits demanding that Brit Heath cover the treatment.
> 
> THAT --  would be unacceptable to the Gate Keepers..  Or should I say "Death Panel"....
> 
> 
> 
> Saved from what? Are you a doctor?
Click to expand...


Saved from the progress of a disease that a MONTH AGO -- MIGHT have been arrested by an American doctor on a trial program. You know that -- why are you dogging me?  That doctor suggested a 15 to 50% chance of stopping and reversing the disease with cutting edge gene therapy..


----------



## DarkFury

flacaltenn said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> No -- of course..  It's all about FAIRNESS and EQUALITY of treatment. If word got out that baby was saved, by Gawdly -- they MIGHT have other Brits demanding that Brit Heath cover the treatment.
> 
> THAT --  would be unacceptable to the Gate Keepers..  Or should I say "Death Panel"....
> 
> 
> 
> Saved from what? Are you a doctor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saved from the progress of a disease that a MONTH AGO -- MIGHT have been arrested by an American doctor on a trial program. You know that -- why are you dogging me?  That doctor suggested a 15 to 50% chance of stopping and reversing the disease with cutting edge gene therapy..
Click to expand...

*It became an issue of a government death panel wanting to publicly show its power. That should worry people more then anything.*


----------



## Dr Grump

SassyIrishLass said:


> [
> 
> I started this thread, moron.
> 
> Take your socialised medicine and health care and stick it up your socialist ass.



I'm not surprised you started this lame arse thread. You can take your capitalist medicine and shove it up you big fat Deplorable arse.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

PredFan said:


> A Socialized Medicine Death Panel killed that child.


It was illness that killed the kid...here he would simply not have been seen at all ...would have died anonymous one of many poor kids who die from lack of access to treatements


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

flacaltenn said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> No -- of course..  It's all about FAIRNESS and EQUALITY of treatment. If word got out that baby was saved, by Gawdly -- they MIGHT have other Brits demanding that Brit Heath cover the treatment.
> 
> THAT --  would be unacceptable to the Gate Keepers..  Or should I say "Death Panel"....
> 
> 
> 
> Saved from what? Are you a doctor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saved from the progress of a disease that a MONTH AGO -- MIGHT have been arrested by an American doctor on a trial program. You know that -- why are you dogging me?  That doctor suggested a 15 to 50% chance of stopping and reversing the disease with cutting edge gene therapy..
Click to expand...

That is hoax medical science


----------



## PredFan

TyroneSlothrop said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Socialized Medicine Death Panel killed that child.
> 
> 
> 
> It was illness that killed the kid...here he would simply not have been seen at all ...would have died anonymous one of many poor kids who die from lack of access to treatements
Click to expand...


Typical bull shit.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

flacaltenn said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> No -- of course..  It's all about FAIRNESS and EQUALITY of treatment. If word got out that baby was saved, by Gawdly -- they MIGHT have other Brits demanding that Brit Heath cover the treatment.
> 
> THAT --  would be unacceptable to the Gate Keepers..  Or should I say "Death Panel"....
> 
> 
> 
> Saved from what? Are you a doctor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saved from the progress of a disease that a MONTH AGO -- MIGHT have been arrested by an American doctor on a trial program. You know that -- why are you dogging me?  That doctor suggested a 15 to 50% chance of stopping and reversing the disease with cutting edge gene therapy..
Click to expand...

You are misinformed.

A cruel and ignorant campaign | MelaniePhillips.com

*The hospital statement contains two particularly devastating passages. The first leaves the reputation of Professor Hirano in shreds.

“Professor Hirano (“the Professor”), whose laboratory research has an international reputation, is very well known to the experts at GOSH and he communicated with them about NBT treatment for Charlie at the very end of December. In January, GOSH invited the Professor to come and see Charlie. That invitation remained open at all times but was not taken up until 18 July after being extended, once again, this time by the Court.

“When the hospital was informed that the Professor had new laboratory findings causing him to believe NBT would be more beneficial to Charlie than he had previously opined, GOSH’s hope for Charlie and his parents was that that optimism would be confirmed.”

That claim of new research evidence was why the parents returned to court and re-opened the case. The judge said he was eager to hear of this new evidence and hoped it would enable him to reverse his previous ruling. The GOSH statement, however, continues:

“It was, therefore, with increasing surprise and disappointment that the hospital listened to the Professor’s fresh evidence to the Court. On 13 July he stated that not only had he not visited the hospital to examine Charlie but in addition, he had not read Charlie’s contemporaneous medical records or viewed Charlie’s brain imaging or read all of the second opinions about Charlie’s condition (obtained from experts all of whom had taken the opportunity to examine him and consider his records) or even read the Judge’s decision made on 11 April.

“Further, GOSH was concerned to hear the Professor state, for the first time, whilst in the witness box, that he retains a financial interest in some of the NBT compounds he proposed prescribing for Charlie. Devastatingly, the information obtained since 13 July gives no cause for optimism. Rather, it confirms that whilst NBT may well assist others in the future, it cannot and could not have assisted Charlie.”

In other words, there never was any hope for Charlie – and the claim that
fresh research evidence provided some new hope was wholly without foundation and came from someone who had never even examined the child.*


----------



## Tommy Tainant

TyroneSlothrop said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Socialized Medicine Death Panel killed that child.
> 
> 
> 
> It was illness that killed the kid...here he would simply not have been seen at all ...would have died anonymous one of many poor kids who die from lack of access to treatements
Click to expand...

The child has been used as a political football by those who oppose a humane health care system.


----------



## koshergrl

Tommy Tainant said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Socialized Medicine Death Panel killed that child.
> 
> 
> 
> It was illness that killed the kid...here he would simply not have been seen at all ...would have died anonymous one of many poor kids who die from lack of access to treatements
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The child has been used as a political football by those who oppose a humane health care system.
Click to expand...

Denying parents the ability to seek cutting edge treatment for their children isn't humane.


----------



## koshergrl

Tommy Tainant said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> No -- of course..  It's all about FAIRNESS and EQUALITY of treatment. If word got out that baby was saved, by Gawdly -- they MIGHT have other Brits demanding that Brit Heath cover the treatment.
> 
> THAT --  would be unacceptable to the Gate Keepers..  Or should I say "Death Panel"....
> 
> 
> 
> Saved from what? Are you a doctor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saved from the progress of a disease that a MONTH AGO -- MIGHT have been arrested by an American doctor on a trial program. You know that -- why are you dogging me?  That doctor suggested a 15 to 50% chance of stopping and reversing the disease with cutting edge gene therapy..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are misinformed.
> 
> A cruel and ignorant campaign | MelaniePhillips.com
> 
> *The hospital statement contains two particularly devastating passages. The first leaves the reputation of Professor Hirano in shreds.
> 
> “Professor Hirano (“the Professor”), whose laboratory research has an international reputation, is very well known to the experts at GOSH and he communicated with them about NBT treatment for Charlie at the very end of December. In January, GOSH invited the Professor to come and see Charlie. That invitation remained open at all times but was not taken up until 18 July after being extended, once again, this time by the Court.
> 
> “When the hospital was informed that the Professor had new laboratory findings causing him to believe NBT would be more beneficial to Charlie than he had previously opined, GOSH’s hope for Charlie and his parents was that that optimism would be confirmed.”
> 
> That claim of new research evidence was why the parents returned to court and re-opened the case. The judge said he was eager to hear of this new evidence and hoped it would enable him to reverse his previous ruling. The GOSH statement, however, continues:
> 
> “It was, therefore, with increasing surprise and disappointment that the hospital listened to the Professor’s fresh evidence to the Court. On 13 July he stated that not only had he not visited the hospital to examine Charlie but in addition, he had not read Charlie’s contemporaneous medical records or viewed Charlie’s brain imaging or read all of the second opinions about Charlie’s condition (obtained from experts all of whom had taken the opportunity to examine him and consider his records) or even read the Judge’s decision made on 11 April.
> 
> “Further, GOSH was concerned to hear the Professor state, for the first time, whilst in the witness box, that he retains a financial interest in some of the NBT compounds he proposed prescribing for Charlie. Devastatingly, the information obtained since 13 July gives no cause for optimism. Rather, it confirms that whilst NBT may well assist others in the future, it cannot and could not have assisted Charlie.”
> 
> In other words, there never was any hope for Charlie – and the claim that
> fresh research evidence provided some new hope was wholly without foundation and came from someone who had never even examined the child.*
Click to expand...


Propaganda to justify denying treatment.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

koshergrl said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> No -- of course..  It's all about FAIRNESS and EQUALITY of treatment. If word got out that baby was saved, by Gawdly -- they MIGHT have other Brits demanding that Brit Heath cover the treatment.
> 
> THAT --  would be unacceptable to the Gate Keepers..  Or should I say "Death Panel"....
> 
> 
> 
> Saved from what? Are you a doctor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saved from the progress of a disease that a MONTH AGO -- MIGHT have been arrested by an American doctor on a trial program. You know that -- why are you dogging me?  That doctor suggested a 15 to 50% chance of stopping and reversing the disease with cutting edge gene therapy..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are misinformed.
> 
> A cruel and ignorant campaign | MelaniePhillips.com
> 
> *The hospital statement contains two particularly devastating passages. The first leaves the reputation of Professor Hirano in shreds.
> 
> “Professor Hirano (“the Professor”), whose laboratory research has an international reputation, is very well known to the experts at GOSH and he communicated with them about NBT treatment for Charlie at the very end of December. In January, GOSH invited the Professor to come and see Charlie. That invitation remained open at all times but was not taken up until 18 July after being extended, once again, this time by the Court.
> 
> “When the hospital was informed that the Professor had new laboratory findings causing him to believe NBT would be more beneficial to Charlie than he had previously opined, GOSH’s hope for Charlie and his parents was that that optimism would be confirmed.”
> 
> That claim of new research evidence was why the parents returned to court and re-opened the case. The judge said he was eager to hear of this new evidence and hoped it would enable him to reverse his previous ruling. The GOSH statement, however, continues:
> 
> “It was, therefore, with increasing surprise and disappointment that the hospital listened to the Professor’s fresh evidence to the Court. On 13 July he stated that not only had he not visited the hospital to examine Charlie but in addition, he had not read Charlie’s contemporaneous medical records or viewed Charlie’s brain imaging or read all of the second opinions about Charlie’s condition (obtained from experts all of whom had taken the opportunity to examine him and consider his records) or even read the Judge’s decision made on 11 April.
> 
> “Further, GOSH was concerned to hear the Professor state, for the first time, whilst in the witness box, that he retains a financial interest in some of the NBT compounds he proposed prescribing for Charlie. Devastatingly, the information obtained since 13 July gives no cause for optimism. Rather, it confirms that whilst NBT may well assist others in the future, it cannot and could not have assisted Charlie.”
> 
> In other words, there never was any hope for Charlie – and the claim that
> fresh research evidence provided some new hope was wholly without foundation and came from someone who had never even examined the child.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Propaganda to justify denying treatment.
Click to expand...

What treatment ? There was no treatment. Dr Hirano had not seen the child or even read his notes. When he gave evidence he confirmed that he could not help.


----------



## koshergrl

Tommy Tainant said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> No -- of course..  It's all about FAIRNESS and EQUALITY of treatment. If word got out that baby was saved, by Gawdly -- they MIGHT have other Brits demanding that Brit Heath cover the treatment.
> 
> THAT --  would be unacceptable to the Gate Keepers..  Or should I say "Death Panel"....
> 
> 
> 
> Saved from what? Are you a doctor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saved from the progress of a disease that a MONTH AGO -- MIGHT have been arrested by an American doctor on a trial program. You know that -- why are you dogging me?  That doctor suggested a 15 to 50% chance of stopping and reversing the disease with cutting edge gene therapy..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are misinformed.
> 
> A cruel and ignorant campaign | MelaniePhillips.com
> 
> *The hospital statement contains two particularly devastating passages. The first leaves the reputation of Professor Hirano in shreds.
> 
> “Professor Hirano (“the Professor”), whose laboratory research has an international reputation, is very well known to the experts at GOSH and he communicated with them about NBT treatment for Charlie at the very end of December. In January, GOSH invited the Professor to come and see Charlie. That invitation remained open at all times but was not taken up until 18 July after being extended, once again, this time by the Court.
> 
> “When the hospital was informed that the Professor had new laboratory findings causing him to believe NBT would be more beneficial to Charlie than he had previously opined, GOSH’s hope for Charlie and his parents was that that optimism would be confirmed.”
> 
> That claim of new research evidence was why the parents returned to court and re-opened the case. The judge said he was eager to hear of this new evidence and hoped it would enable him to reverse his previous ruling. The GOSH statement, however, continues:
> 
> “It was, therefore, with increasing surprise and disappointment that the hospital listened to the Professor’s fresh evidence to the Court. On 13 July he stated that not only had he not visited the hospital to examine Charlie but in addition, he had not read Charlie’s contemporaneous medical records or viewed Charlie’s brain imaging or read all of the second opinions about Charlie’s condition (obtained from experts all of whom had taken the opportunity to examine him and consider his records) or even read the Judge’s decision made on 11 April.
> 
> “Further, GOSH was concerned to hear the Professor state, for the first time, whilst in the witness box, that he retains a financial interest in some of the NBT compounds he proposed prescribing for Charlie. Devastatingly, the information obtained since 13 July gives no cause for optimism. Rather, it confirms that whilst NBT may well assist others in the future, it cannot and could not have assisted Charlie.”
> 
> In other words, there never was any hope for Charlie – and the claim that
> fresh research evidence provided some new hope was wholly without foundation and came from someone who had never even examined the child.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Propaganda to justify denying treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What treatment ? There was no treatment. Dr Hirano had not seen the child or even read his notes. When he gave evidence he confirmed that he could not help.
Click to expand...




Tommy Tainant said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> No -- of course..  It's all about FAIRNESS and EQUALITY of treatment. If word got out that baby was saved, by Gawdly -- they MIGHT have other Brits demanding that Brit Heath cover the treatment.
> 
> THAT --  would be unacceptable to the Gate Keepers..  Or should I say "Death Panel"....
> 
> 
> 
> Saved from what? Are you a doctor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saved from the progress of a disease that a MONTH AGO -- MIGHT have been arrested by an American doctor on a trial program. You know that -- why are you dogging me?  That doctor suggested a 15 to 50% chance of stopping and reversing the disease with cutting edge gene therapy..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are misinformed.
> 
> A cruel and ignorant campaign | MelaniePhillips.com
> 
> *The hospital statement contains two particularly devastating passages. The first leaves the reputation of Professor Hirano in shreds.
> 
> “Professor Hirano (“the Professor”), whose laboratory research has an international reputation, is very well known to the experts at GOSH and he communicated with them about NBT treatment for Charlie at the very end of December. In January, GOSH invited the Professor to come and see Charlie. That invitation remained open at all times but was not taken up until 18 July after being extended, once again, this time by the Court.
> 
> “When the hospital was informed that the Professor had new laboratory findings causing him to believe NBT would be more beneficial to Charlie than he had previously opined, GOSH’s hope for Charlie and his parents was that that optimism would be confirmed.”
> 
> That claim of new research evidence was why the parents returned to court and re-opened the case. The judge said he was eager to hear of this new evidence and hoped it would enable him to reverse his previous ruling. The GOSH statement, however, continues:
> 
> “It was, therefore, with increasing surprise and disappointment that the hospital listened to the Professor’s fresh evidence to the Court. On 13 July he stated that not only had he not visited the hospital to examine Charlie but in addition, he had not read Charlie’s contemporaneous medical records or viewed Charlie’s brain imaging or read all of the second opinions about Charlie’s condition (obtained from experts all of whom had taken the opportunity to examine him and consider his records) or even read the Judge’s decision made on 11 April.
> 
> “Further, GOSH was concerned to hear the Professor state, for the first time, whilst in the witness box, that he retains a financial interest in some of the NBT compounds he proposed prescribing for Charlie. Devastatingly, the information obtained since 13 July gives no cause for optimism. Rather, it confirms that whilst NBT may well assist others in the future, it cannot and could not have assisted Charlie.”
> 
> In other words, there never was any hope for Charlie – and the claim that
> fresh research evidence provided some new hope was wholly without foundation and came from someone who had never even examined the child.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Propaganda to justify denying treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What treatment ? There was no treatment. Dr Hirano had not seen the child or even read his notes. When he gave evidence he confirmed that he could not help.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. The fact that he didn't come to the UK at the Hospital's bidding does not confirm he couldn't help. Nor did his testimony "confirm that he could not help". You're a liar.


----------



## Moonglow

Kids dies every hour of everyday, yet only one child get's a pseudo representation because of a healthcare system and what doctors said about the case..


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Moonglow said:


> Kids dies every hour of everyday, yet only one child get's a pseudo representation because of a healthcare system and what doctors said about the case..



It's more to the point the parents had the funds to pay for the experimental treatment and were denied even trying it.

Since when does anyone have the authority to deny someone paying their own way to help their own child?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

koshergrl said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saved from what? Are you a doctor?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saved from the progress of a disease that a MONTH AGO -- MIGHT have been arrested by an American doctor on a trial program. You know that -- why are you dogging me?  That doctor suggested a 15 to 50% chance of stopping and reversing the disease with cutting edge gene therapy..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are misinformed.
> 
> A cruel and ignorant campaign | MelaniePhillips.com
> 
> *The hospital statement contains two particularly devastating passages. The first leaves the reputation of Professor Hirano in shreds.
> 
> “Professor Hirano (“the Professor”), whose laboratory research has an international reputation, is very well known to the experts at GOSH and he communicated with them about NBT treatment for Charlie at the very end of December. In January, GOSH invited the Professor to come and see Charlie. That invitation remained open at all times but was not taken up until 18 July after being extended, once again, this time by the Court.
> 
> “When the hospital was informed that the Professor had new laboratory findings causing him to believe NBT would be more beneficial to Charlie than he had previously opined, GOSH’s hope for Charlie and his parents was that that optimism would be confirmed.”
> 
> That claim of new research evidence was why the parents returned to court and re-opened the case. The judge said he was eager to hear of this new evidence and hoped it would enable him to reverse his previous ruling. The GOSH statement, however, continues:
> 
> “It was, therefore, with increasing surprise and disappointment that the hospital listened to the Professor’s fresh evidence to the Court. On 13 July he stated that not only had he not visited the hospital to examine Charlie but in addition, he had not read Charlie’s contemporaneous medical records or viewed Charlie’s brain imaging or read all of the second opinions about Charlie’s condition (obtained from experts all of whom had taken the opportunity to examine him and consider his records) or even read the Judge’s decision made on 11 April.
> 
> “Further, GOSH was concerned to hear the Professor state, for the first time, whilst in the witness box, that he retains a financial interest in some of the NBT compounds he proposed prescribing for Charlie. Devastatingly, the information obtained since 13 July gives no cause for optimism. Rather, it confirms that whilst NBT may well assist others in the future, it cannot and could not have assisted Charlie.”
> 
> In other words, there never was any hope for Charlie – and the claim that
> fresh research evidence provided some new hope was wholly without foundation and came from someone who had never even examined the child.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Propaganda to justify denying treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What treatment ? There was no treatment. Dr Hirano had not seen the child or even read his notes. When he gave evidence he confirmed that he could not help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saved from what? Are you a doctor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saved from the progress of a disease that a MONTH AGO -- MIGHT have been arrested by an American doctor on a trial program. You know that -- why are you dogging me?  That doctor suggested a 15 to 50% chance of stopping and reversing the disease with cutting edge gene therapy..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are misinformed.
> 
> A cruel and ignorant campaign | MelaniePhillips.com
> 
> *The hospital statement contains two particularly devastating passages. The first leaves the reputation of Professor Hirano in shreds.
> 
> “Professor Hirano (“the Professor”), whose laboratory research has an international reputation, is very well known to the experts at GOSH and he communicated with them about NBT treatment for Charlie at the very end of December. In January, GOSH invited the Professor to come and see Charlie. That invitation remained open at all times but was not taken up until 18 July after being extended, once again, this time by the Court.
> 
> “When the hospital was informed that the Professor had new laboratory findings causing him to believe NBT would be more beneficial to Charlie than he had previously opined, GOSH’s hope for Charlie and his parents was that that optimism would be confirmed.”
> 
> That claim of new research evidence was why the parents returned to court and re-opened the case. The judge said he was eager to hear of this new evidence and hoped it would enable him to reverse his previous ruling. The GOSH statement, however, continues:
> 
> “It was, therefore, with increasing surprise and disappointment that the hospital listened to the Professor’s fresh evidence to the Court. On 13 July he stated that not only had he not visited the hospital to examine Charlie but in addition, he had not read Charlie’s contemporaneous medical records or viewed Charlie’s brain imaging or read all of the second opinions about Charlie’s condition (obtained from experts all of whom had taken the opportunity to examine him and consider his records) or even read the Judge’s decision made on 11 April.
> 
> “Further, GOSH was concerned to hear the Professor state, for the first time, whilst in the witness box, that he retains a financial interest in some of the NBT compounds he proposed prescribing for Charlie. Devastatingly, the information obtained since 13 July gives no cause for optimism. Rather, it confirms that whilst NBT may well assist others in the future, it cannot and could not have assisted Charlie.”
> 
> In other words, there never was any hope for Charlie – and the claim that
> fresh research evidence provided some new hope was wholly without foundation and came from someone who had never even examined the child.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Propaganda to justify denying treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What treatment ? There was no treatment. Dr Hirano had not seen the child or even read his notes. When he gave evidence he confirmed that he could not help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. The fact that he didn't come to the UK at the Hospital's bidding does not confirm he couldn't help. Nor did his testimony "confirm that he could not help". You're a liar.
Click to expand...

US doctor in Charlie Gard case speaks out

*"Unfortunately, a MRI scan of Charlie's muscle tissue conducted in the past week has revealed that it is very unlikely that he would benefit from this treatment."*

You should actually read up on stuff before you shoot your ignorant mouth off.


----------



## PredFan

Tommy Tainant said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Socialized Medicine Death Panel killed that child.
> 
> 
> 
> It was illness that killed the kid...here he would simply not have been seen at all ...would have died anonymous one of many poor kids who die from lack of access to treatements
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The child has been used as a political football by those who oppose a humane health care system.
Click to expand...


Bull shit. He is an example of how inhumane the British system is.


----------



## JoeB131

PredFan said:


> Unbelievable. What a gross abuse of power. Welcome to Socialized medicine.



Okay, let's look what would have happened if Charlie had his issues with Corporatized Medicine.

If Charlie was one of the Americans without insurance, he'd probably have been done months ago. But let's assume that he was lucky enough to have insurance and let's assume that the insurance company didn't declare his procedure "Experimental" and decide not to fund it.   

There would come a point where the big insurance companies would have declared, "Well, we've done our part. The Gards have exceeded their maximum coverage."  The hospitals would have kept treating Charlie until his parents were bankrupted, and you wouldn't have a bunch of religious do-gooders raising money for them.


----------



## JoeB131

flacaltenn said:


> Saved from the progress of a disease that a MONTH AGO -- MIGHT have been arrested by an American doctor on a trial program. You know that -- why are you dogging me? That doctor suggested a 15 to 50% chance of stopping and reversing the disease with cutting edge gene therapy..



Might have a 15% chance of stopping a disease that already left him blind, deaf and paralyzed?


----------



## flacaltenn

Tommy Tainant said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> No -- of course..  It's all about FAIRNESS and EQUALITY of treatment. If word got out that baby was saved, by Gawdly -- they MIGHT have other Brits demanding that Brit Heath cover the treatment.
> 
> THAT --  would be unacceptable to the Gate Keepers..  Or should I say "Death Panel"....
> 
> 
> 
> Saved from what? Are you a doctor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saved from the progress of a disease that a MONTH AGO -- MIGHT have been arrested by an American doctor on a trial program. You know that -- why are you dogging me?  That doctor suggested a 15 to 50% chance of stopping and reversing the disease with cutting edge gene therapy..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are misinformed.
> 
> A cruel and ignorant campaign | MelaniePhillips.com
> 
> *The hospital statement contains two particularly devastating passages. The first leaves the reputation of Professor Hirano in shreds.
> 
> “Professor Hirano (“the Professor”), whose laboratory research has an international reputation, is very well known to the experts at GOSH and he communicated with them about NBT treatment for Charlie at the very end of December. In January, GOSH invited the Professor to come and see Charlie. That invitation remained open at all times but was not taken up until 18 July after being extended, once again, this time by the Court.
> 
> “When the hospital was informed that the Professor had new laboratory findings causing him to believe NBT would be more beneficial to Charlie than he had previously opined, GOSH’s hope for Charlie and his parents was that that optimism would be confirmed.”
> 
> That claim of new research evidence was why the parents returned to court and re-opened the case. The judge said he was eager to hear of this new evidence and hoped it would enable him to reverse his previous ruling. The GOSH statement, however, continues:
> 
> “It was, therefore, with increasing surprise and disappointment that the hospital listened to the Professor’s fresh evidence to the Court. On 13 July he stated that not only had he not visited the hospital to examine Charlie but in addition, he had not read Charlie’s contemporaneous medical records or viewed Charlie’s brain imaging or read all of the second opinions about Charlie’s condition (obtained from experts all of whom had taken the opportunity to examine him and consider his records) or even read the Judge’s decision made on 11 April.
> 
> “Further, GOSH was concerned to hear the Professor state, for the first time, whilst in the witness box, that he retains a financial interest in some of the NBT compounds he proposed prescribing for Charlie. Devastatingly, the information obtained since 13 July gives no cause for optimism. Rather, it confirms that whilst NBT may well assist others in the future, it cannot and could not have assisted Charlie.”
> 
> In other words, there never was any hope for Charlie – and the claim that
> fresh research evidence provided some new hope was wholly without foundation and came from someone who had never even examined the child.*
Click to expand...


Absolutely NOTHING devasting there. The condition we're discussing has KNOWN progressions. And the researcher was more familiar with these facts than probably the attending physicians provided by Brit Health. 

There would be NO REASON to come visit the child if the ENTIRE Brit Govt was saying no.. None whatsoever. He's not a care-taker or there to comfort parents -- he's a researcher. 

If the Govt hadn't definitely RULED OUT allowing that family to travel for treatment, there WOULD have been a visit and an evaluation. Either by the Principal Investigator or one of his associates. 

Furthermore -- *EVEN IF -- the American Doctor wasn't gonna to get embroiled in this and COULD NOT help Charlie, YOU need to recognize that under those conditions, CHARLIE could have helped THOUSANDS of other kids with this condition.*  You don't really THINK.  You react instinctively and politically..


----------



## flacaltenn

JoeB131 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saved from the progress of a disease that a MONTH AGO -- MIGHT have been arrested by an American doctor on a trial program. You know that -- why are you dogging me? That doctor suggested a 15 to 50% chance of stopping and reversing the disease with cutting edge gene therapy..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Might have a 15% chance of stopping a disease that already left him blind, deaf and paralyzed?
Click to expand...


Not enough is known about the disease and the effects of reversal. In a developing child, correcting the mitochondrial gap issues means that EXISTING tissue is made functioning again. And NEW tissue is correctly grown. 

So like I told your pal Tommy.  At the VERY LEAST -- Charlie could have helped Thousands of other kids...


----------



## JoeB131

flacaltenn said:


> Not enough is known about the disease and the effects of reversal. In a developing child, correcting the mitochondrial gap issues means that EXISTING tissue is made functioning again. And NEW tissue is correctly grown.
> 
> So like I told your pal Tommy. At the VERY LEAST -- Charlie could have helped Thousands of other kids...



But that's not the way the advocates of the Gards are portraying it. they are portraying it as he was going to get better, if it weren't for this damned socialized medicine which probably spent more on his treatment than a private insurance company would have before bankrupting his parents. 

You see, if Corporate Medicine had the answer, there are probably a lot more cases to tinker with in the US than the UK.... The fact that had to engage in a little socialized medicine bashing because they finally had the decency to say, "enough".


----------



## flacaltenn

JoeB131 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not enough is known about the disease and the effects of reversal. In a developing child, correcting the mitochondrial gap issues means that EXISTING tissue is made functioning again. And NEW tissue is correctly grown.
> 
> So like I told your pal Tommy. At the VERY LEAST -- Charlie could have helped Thousands of other kids...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not the way the advocates of the Gards are portraying it. they are portraying it as he was going to get better, if it weren't for this damned socialized medicine which probably spent more on his treatment than a private insurance company would have before bankrupting his parents.
> 
> You see, if Corporate Medicine had the answer, there are probably a lot more cases to tinker with in the US than the UK.... The fact that had to engage in a little socialized medicine bashing because they finally had the decency to say, "enough".
Click to expand...


Yeah.. There WAS a chance to "get better"..  And the GOVT denied the parents ACCESS TO THEIR OWN CHILD --  to use that chance.


----------



## Mindful

flacaltenn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not enough is known about the disease and the effects of reversal. In a developing child, correcting the mitochondrial gap issues means that EXISTING tissue is made functioning again. And NEW tissue is correctly grown.
> 
> So like I told your pal Tommy. At the VERY LEAST -- Charlie could have helped Thousands of other kids...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not the way the advocates of the Gards are portraying it. they are portraying it as he was going to get better, if it weren't for this damned socialized medicine which probably spent more on his treatment than a private insurance company would have before bankrupting his parents.
> 
> You see, if Corporate Medicine had the answer, there are probably a lot more cases to tinker with in the US than the UK.... The fact that had to engage in a little socialized medicine bashing because they finally had the decency to say, "enough".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.. There WAS a chance to "get better"..  And the GOVT denied the parents ACCESS TO THEIR OWN CHILD --  to use that chance.
Click to expand...


And they'd raised the money for a trip to the US. So they wouldn't have relied on the government to pay for them to go.


----------



## flacaltenn

JoeB131 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not enough is known about the disease and the effects of reversal. In a developing child, correcting the mitochondrial gap issues means that EXISTING tissue is made functioning again. And NEW tissue is correctly grown.
> 
> So like I told your pal Tommy. At the VERY LEAST -- Charlie could have helped Thousands of other kids...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not the way the advocates of the Gards are portraying it. they are portraying it as he was going to get better, if it weren't for this damned socialized medicine which probably spent more on his treatment than a private insurance company would have before bankrupting his parents.
> 
> You see, if Corporate Medicine had the answer, there are probably a lot more cases to tinker with in the US than the UK.... The fact that had to engage in a little socialized medicine bashing because they finally had the decency to say, "enough".
Click to expand...


What is this fucking "CORPORATE Medicine" slogan?  Do you know the capital and the brainpower that needs to be assembled to even REPLICATE gene therapy research??   I do.  I've provided a lot of high tech equipment designs to this effort. And it's NOT done without HUGE risk and HUGE investment..  

Here's the deal with you leftists and your anti Capitalist slogans. You ARE that way because you want the Govt to provide a RISK FREE environment for you.. AND force it on me as well.  KNOW WHAT?  COMPLICATED EXPENSIVE shit NEVER gets done without losses, failures and RISK. 

RISK is the great unknown to you morons. And you have no appreciation about how medical advances are done. Because you have no concept of RISK and INVESTMENT.. .


----------



## Mindful

Tommy Tainant said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saved from the progress of a disease that a MONTH AGO -- MIGHT have been arrested by an American doctor on a trial program. You know that -- why are you dogging me?  That doctor suggested a 15 to 50% chance of stopping and reversing the disease with cutting edge gene therapy..
> 
> 
> 
> You are misinformed.
> 
> A cruel and ignorant campaign | MelaniePhillips.com
> 
> *The hospital statement contains two particularly devastating passages. The first leaves the reputation of Professor Hirano in shreds.
> 
> “Professor Hirano (“the Professor”), whose laboratory research has an international reputation, is very well known to the experts at GOSH and he communicated with them about NBT treatment for Charlie at the very end of December. In January, GOSH invited the Professor to come and see Charlie. That invitation remained open at all times but was not taken up until 18 July after being extended, once again, this time by the Court.
> 
> “When the hospital was informed that the Professor had new laboratory findings causing him to believe NBT would be more beneficial to Charlie than he had previously opined, GOSH’s hope for Charlie and his parents was that that optimism would be confirmed.”
> 
> That claim of new research evidence was why the parents returned to court and re-opened the case. The judge said he was eager to hear of this new evidence and hoped it would enable him to reverse his previous ruling. The GOSH statement, however, continues:
> 
> “It was, therefore, with increasing surprise and disappointment that the hospital listened to the Professor’s fresh evidence to the Court. On 13 July he stated that not only had he not visited the hospital to examine Charlie but in addition, he had not read Charlie’s contemporaneous medical records or viewed Charlie’s brain imaging or read all of the second opinions about Charlie’s condition (obtained from experts all of whom had taken the opportunity to examine him and consider his records) or even read the Judge’s decision made on 11 April.
> 
> “Further, GOSH was concerned to hear the Professor state, for the first time, whilst in the witness box, that he retains a financial interest in some of the NBT compounds he proposed prescribing for Charlie. Devastatingly, the information obtained since 13 July gives no cause for optimism. Rather, it confirms that whilst NBT may well assist others in the future, it cannot and could not have assisted Charlie.”
> 
> In other words, there never was any hope for Charlie – and the claim that
> fresh research evidence provided some new hope was wholly without foundation and came from someone who had never even examined the child.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Propaganda to justify denying treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What treatment ? There was no treatment. Dr Hirano had not seen the child or even read his notes. When he gave evidence he confirmed that he could not help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saved from the progress of a disease that a MONTH AGO -- MIGHT have been arrested by an American doctor on a trial program. You know that -- why are you dogging me?  That doctor suggested a 15 to 50% chance of stopping and reversing the disease with cutting edge gene therapy..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are misinformed.
> 
> A cruel and ignorant campaign | MelaniePhillips.com
> 
> *The hospital statement contains two particularly devastating passages. The first leaves the reputation of Professor Hirano in shreds.
> 
> “Professor Hirano (“the Professor”), whose laboratory research has an international reputation, is very well known to the experts at GOSH and he communicated with them about NBT treatment for Charlie at the very end of December. In January, GOSH invited the Professor to come and see Charlie. That invitation remained open at all times but was not taken up until 18 July after being extended, once again, this time by the Court.
> 
> “When the hospital was informed that the Professor had new laboratory findings causing him to believe NBT would be more beneficial to Charlie than he had previously opined, GOSH’s hope for Charlie and his parents was that that optimism would be confirmed.”
> 
> That claim of new research evidence was why the parents returned to court and re-opened the case. The judge said he was eager to hear of this new evidence and hoped it would enable him to reverse his previous ruling. The GOSH statement, however, continues:
> 
> “It was, therefore, with increasing surprise and disappointment that the hospital listened to the Professor’s fresh evidence to the Court. On 13 July he stated that not only had he not visited the hospital to examine Charlie but in addition, he had not read Charlie’s contemporaneous medical records or viewed Charlie’s brain imaging or read all of the second opinions about Charlie’s condition (obtained from experts all of whom had taken the opportunity to examine him and consider his records) or even read the Judge’s decision made on 11 April.
> 
> “Further, GOSH was concerned to hear the Professor state, for the first time, whilst in the witness box, that he retains a financial interest in some of the NBT compounds he proposed prescribing for Charlie. Devastatingly, the information obtained since 13 July gives no cause for optimism. Rather, it confirms that whilst NBT may well assist others in the future, it cannot and could not have assisted Charlie.”
> 
> In other words, there never was any hope for Charlie – and the claim that
> fresh research evidence provided some new hope was wholly without foundation and came from someone who had never even examined the child.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Propaganda to justify denying treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What treatment ? There was no treatment. Dr Hirano had not seen the child or even read his notes. When he gave evidence he confirmed that he could not help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. The fact that he didn't come to the UK at the Hospital's bidding does not confirm he couldn't help. Nor did his testimony "confirm that he could not help". You're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> US doctor in Charlie Gard case speaks out
> 
> *"Unfortunately, a MRI scan of Charlie's muscle tissue conducted in the past week has revealed that it is very unlikely that he would benefit from this treatment."*
> 
> You should actually read up on stuff before you shoot your ignorant mouth off.
Click to expand...


Why are you so uptight about it? Charlie wasn't your child.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

flacaltenn said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> No -- of course..  It's all about FAIRNESS and EQUALITY of treatment. If word got out that baby was saved, by Gawdly -- they MIGHT have other Brits demanding that Brit Heath cover the treatment.
> 
> THAT --  would be unacceptable to the Gate Keepers..  Or should I say "Death Panel"....
> 
> 
> 
> Saved from what? Are you a doctor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saved from the progress of a disease that a MONTH AGO -- MIGHT have been arrested by an American doctor on a trial program. You know that -- why are you dogging me?  That doctor suggested a 15 to 50% chance of stopping and reversing the disease with cutting edge gene therapy..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are misinformed.
> 
> A cruel and ignorant campaign | MelaniePhillips.com
> 
> *The hospital statement contains two particularly devastating passages. The first leaves the reputation of Professor Hirano in shreds.
> 
> “Professor Hirano (“the Professor”), whose laboratory research has an international reputation, is very well known to the experts at GOSH and he communicated with them about NBT treatment for Charlie at the very end of December. In January, GOSH invited the Professor to come and see Charlie. That invitation remained open at all times but was not taken up until 18 July after being extended, once again, this time by the Court.
> 
> “When the hospital was informed that the Professor had new laboratory findings causing him to believe NBT would be more beneficial to Charlie than he had previously opined, GOSH’s hope for Charlie and his parents was that that optimism would be confirmed.”
> 
> That claim of new research evidence was why the parents returned to court and re-opened the case. The judge said he was eager to hear of this new evidence and hoped it would enable him to reverse his previous ruling. The GOSH statement, however, continues:
> 
> “It was, therefore, with increasing surprise and disappointment that the hospital listened to the Professor’s fresh evidence to the Court. On 13 July he stated that not only had he not visited the hospital to examine Charlie but in addition, he had not read Charlie’s contemporaneous medical records or viewed Charlie’s brain imaging or read all of the second opinions about Charlie’s condition (obtained from experts all of whom had taken the opportunity to examine him and consider his records) or even read the Judge’s decision made on 11 April.
> 
> “Further, GOSH was concerned to hear the Professor state, for the first time, whilst in the witness box, that he retains a financial interest in some of the NBT compounds he proposed prescribing for Charlie. Devastatingly, the information obtained since 13 July gives no cause for optimism. Rather, it confirms that whilst NBT may well assist others in the future, it cannot and could not have assisted Charlie.”
> 
> In other words, there never was any hope for Charlie – and the claim that
> fresh research evidence provided some new hope was wholly without foundation and came from someone who had never even examined the child.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely NOTHING devasting there. The condition we're discussing has KNOWN progressions. And the researcher was more familiar with these facts than probably the attending physicians provided by Brit Health.
> 
> There would be NO REASON to come visit the child if the ENTIRE Brit Govt was saying no.. None whatsoever. He's not a care-taker or there to comfort parents -- he's a researcher.
> 
> If the Govt hadn't definitely RULED OUT allowing that family to travel for treatment, there WOULD have been a visit and an evaluation. Either by the Principal Investigator or one of his associates.
> 
> Furthermore -- *EVEN IF -- the American Doctor wasn't gonna to get embroiled in this and COULD NOT help Charlie, YOU need to recognize that under those conditions, CHARLIE could have helped THOUSANDS of other kids with this condition.*  You don't really THINK.  You react instinctively and politically..
Click to expand...


Again you are misinformed. The British Govt plays no part in this. Dr Hirano was actually invited over by GOSH on more than one occasion but did not bother to do so. The decisions on Charlies care were taken by the Doctors at GOSH in line with the  accepted standards in the UK. The parents disagreed and it went to court. The Judges,all independent, heard the evidence and backed the hospital. The courts in the UK have a duty to consider the childs best interest. I understand that isnt the case in the US.

You seem to be looking for a bad guy when there isnt one.

Think about it for a while. The easiest thing for the hospital would have been to have sent him to the US. No fuss and no comebacks. They should be applauded for sticking up for the poor child.


----------



## Lucy Hamilton

SassyIrishLass said:


> Bless you little one.
> 
> *Charlie Gard, focus of international legal health battle, dies week before first birthday*
> 
> British baby Charlie Gard, who was at the center of a legal battle that captured the world’s attention, died Friday, one week before his first birthday, UK’s Press Association reports.
> 
> Charlie Gard, focus of international legal health battle, dies week before first birthday



The baby suffered so much, he's now in Our Lord's Beautiful Kingdom where there is no pain or suffering, only peace and happiness.


----------



## Lucy Hamilton

Tipsycatlover said:


> In a final slap, a kick if you will, the court ruled that this baby's parents could not take him home.  He died in hospice where he could be denied even a suck of water.



Parents should be allowed to take a baby and/or a child home for it to die, not something as impersonal as a hospice, an adult can go home to die, so why not a baby and/or a child.


----------



## Mindful

Lucy Hamilton said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a final slap, a kick if you will, the court ruled that this baby's parents could not take him home.  He died in hospice where he could be denied even a suck of water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Parents should be allowed to take a baby and/or a child home for it to die, not something as impersonal as a hospice, an adult can go home to die, so why not a baby and/or a child.
Click to expand...


They said the equipment/breathing machine was too big to get into the house.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Lucy Hamilton said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a final slap, a kick if you will, the court ruled that this baby's parents could not take him home.  He died in hospice where he could be denied even a suck of water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Parents should be allowed to take a baby and/or a child home for it to die, not something as impersonal as a hospice, an adult can go home to die, so why not a baby and/or a child.
Click to expand...

Don't count on an adult going home to die once the government has given its death sentence. In a hospice food and water are denied.  The person is kept sedated to alleviate the effects of starvation and dehydration.   At home, a family member might provide water or food.  

I went through this with a good friend.  I was in a position to stop them from moving her into hospice care and an agonizing death.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Mindful said:


> Lucy Hamilton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a final slap, a kick if you will, the court ruled that this baby's parents could not take him home.  He died in hospice where he could be denied even a suck of water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Parents should be allowed to take a baby and/or a child home for it to die, not something as impersonal as a hospice, an adult can go home to die, so why not a baby and/or a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They said the equipment/breathing machine was too big to get into the house.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.  Someone that is dying does not get a breathing machine.


----------



## Mindful

Tipsycatlover said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lucy Hamilton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a final slap, a kick if you will, the court ruled that this baby's parents could not take him home.  He died in hospice where he could be denied even a suck of water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Parents should be allowed to take a baby and/or a child home for it to die, not something as impersonal as a hospice, an adult can go home to die, so why not a baby and/or a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They said the equipment/breathing machine was too big to get into the house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.  Someone that is dying does not get a breathing machine.
Click to expand...


Tell that to the source that decided it. It was all over the news.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Charlie Gard was denied treatment despite a willingness to pay, for only one reason.  Liberals are against the advancement of medical knowledge.


----------



## bodecea

Tipsycatlover said:


> Charlie Gard was denied treatment despite a willingness to pay, for only one reason.  Liberals are against the advancement of medical knowledge.


so you're upset this child wasn't a guinea pig.


----------



## Dr Grump

Tommy Tainant said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saved from the progress of a disease that a MONTH AGO -- MIGHT have been arrested by an American doctor on a trial program. You know that -- why are you dogging me?  That doctor suggested a 15 to 50% chance of stopping and reversing the disease with cutting edge gene therapy..
> 
> 
> 
> You are misinformed.
> 
> A cruel and ignorant campaign | MelaniePhillips.com
> 
> *The hospital statement contains two particularly devastating passages. The first leaves the reputation of Professor Hirano in shreds.
> 
> “Professor Hirano (“the Professor”), whose laboratory research has an international reputation, is very well known to the experts at GOSH and he communicated with them about NBT treatment for Charlie at the very end of December. In January, GOSH invited the Professor to come and see Charlie. That invitation remained open at all times but was not taken up until 18 July after being extended, once again, this time by the Court.
> 
> “When the hospital was informed that the Professor had new laboratory findings causing him to believe NBT would be more beneficial to Charlie than he had previously opined, GOSH’s hope for Charlie and his parents was that that optimism would be confirmed.”
> 
> That claim of new research evidence was why the parents returned to court and re-opened the case. The judge said he was eager to hear of this new evidence and hoped it would enable him to reverse his previous ruling. The GOSH statement, however, continues:
> 
> “It was, therefore, with increasing surprise and disappointment that the hospital listened to the Professor’s fresh evidence to the Court. On 13 July he stated that not only had he not visited the hospital to examine Charlie but in addition, he had not read Charlie’s contemporaneous medical records or viewed Charlie’s brain imaging or read all of the second opinions about Charlie’s condition (obtained from experts all of whom had taken the opportunity to examine him and consider his records) or even read the Judge’s decision made on 11 April.
> 
> “Further, GOSH was concerned to hear the Professor state, for the first time, whilst in the witness box, that he retains a financial interest in some of the NBT compounds he proposed prescribing for Charlie. Devastatingly, the information obtained since 13 July gives no cause for optimism. Rather, it confirms that whilst NBT may well assist others in the future, it cannot and could not have assisted Charlie.”
> 
> In other words, there never was any hope for Charlie – and the claim that
> fresh research evidence provided some new hope was wholly without foundation and came from someone who had never even examined the child.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Propaganda to justify denying treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What treatment ? There was no treatment. Dr Hirano had not seen the child or even read his notes. When he gave evidence he confirmed that he could not help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saved from the progress of a disease that a MONTH AGO -- MIGHT have been arrested by an American doctor on a trial program. You know that -- why are you dogging me?  That doctor suggested a 15 to 50% chance of stopping and reversing the disease with cutting edge gene therapy..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are misinformed.
> 
> A cruel and ignorant campaign | MelaniePhillips.com
> 
> *The hospital statement contains two particularly devastating passages. The first leaves the reputation of Professor Hirano in shreds.
> 
> “Professor Hirano (“the Professor”), whose laboratory research has an international reputation, is very well known to the experts at GOSH and he communicated with them about NBT treatment for Charlie at the very end of December. In January, GOSH invited the Professor to come and see Charlie. That invitation remained open at all times but was not taken up until 18 July after being extended, once again, this time by the Court.
> 
> “When the hospital was informed that the Professor had new laboratory findings causing him to believe NBT would be more beneficial to Charlie than he had previously opined, GOSH’s hope for Charlie and his parents was that that optimism would be confirmed.”
> 
> That claim of new research evidence was why the parents returned to court and re-opened the case. The judge said he was eager to hear of this new evidence and hoped it would enable him to reverse his previous ruling. The GOSH statement, however, continues:
> 
> “It was, therefore, with increasing surprise and disappointment that the hospital listened to the Professor’s fresh evidence to the Court. On 13 July he stated that not only had he not visited the hospital to examine Charlie but in addition, he had not read Charlie’s contemporaneous medical records or viewed Charlie’s brain imaging or read all of the second opinions about Charlie’s condition (obtained from experts all of whom had taken the opportunity to examine him and consider his records) or even read the Judge’s decision made on 11 April.
> 
> “Further, GOSH was concerned to hear the Professor state, for the first time, whilst in the witness box, that he retains a financial interest in some of the NBT compounds he proposed prescribing for Charlie. Devastatingly, the information obtained since 13 July gives no cause for optimism. Rather, it confirms that whilst NBT may well assist others in the future, it cannot and could not have assisted Charlie.”
> 
> In other words, there never was any hope for Charlie – and the claim that
> fresh research evidence provided some new hope was wholly without foundation and came from someone who had never even examined the child.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Propaganda to justify denying treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What treatment ? There was no treatment. Dr Hirano had not seen the child or even read his notes. When he gave evidence he confirmed that he could not help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. The fact that he didn't come to the UK at the Hospital's bidding does not confirm he couldn't help. Nor did his testimony "confirm that he could not help". You're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> US doctor in Charlie Gard case speaks out
> 
> *"Unfortunately, a MRI scan of Charlie's muscle tissue conducted in the past week has revealed that it is very unlikely that he would benefit from this treatment."*
> 
> You should actually read up on stuff before you shoot your ignorant mouth off.
Click to expand...


Seriously? Koshergirl? She is as dumb as a sack of shit. She is a fake news acolyte and wouldn't have a clue.


----------



## koshergrl

Treatment of the broken bones of elderly patients is an iffy thing, as well...and we all know how painful broken bones are. I imagine that the next step will be, as was already mentioned in this thread, denying treatment to the elderly because it just prolongs their agony, and there isn't much of a chance of a full recovery. You don't actually recover from old age. And they won't get the chance to try.


----------



## JoeB131

flacaltenn said:


> Yeah.. There WAS a chance to "get better".. And the GOVT denied the parents ACCESS TO THEIR OWN CHILD -- to use that chance.



Yes. And so?  

I'm sorry, you know what, we have millions of poor children in this country who can't get in to see a pediatrician because big insurance doesn't consider them worth covering.  As someone pointed out on another thread, 50% of births are done on medicaid.  

Yet you guys go on and on about this very sad case because you think it makes a point. 



flacaltenn said:


> What is this fucking "CORPORATE Medicine" slogan? Do you know the capital and the brainpower that needs to be assembled to even REPLICATE gene therapy research?? I do. I've provided a lot of high tech equipment designs to this effort. And it's NOT done without HUGE risk and HUGE investment..
> 
> Here's the deal with you leftists and your anti Capitalist slogans. You ARE that way because you want the Govt to provide a RISK FREE environment for you.. AND force it on me as well. KNOW WHAT? COMPLICATED EXPENSIVE shit NEVER gets done without losses, failures and RISK.
> 
> RISK is the great unknown to you morons. And you have no appreciation about how medical advances are done. Because you have no concept of RISK and INVESTMENT.. .



Yawn, guy you can apologize for the one percenters all day here... but if Charlie Gard had been an American kid, big insurance would have cut him off a long time ago.  Or his family would be one of the 62% of bankruptcies that happen because of medical crisis.  

As Tommy pointed out, this researcher was invited several times to treat Gard in a UK hospital. He didn't want to.


----------



## JoeB131

Tipsycatlover said:


> Charlie Gard was denied treatment despite a willingness to pay, for only one reason.  Liberals are against the advancement of medical knowledge.



No, they just thought it would be cruel to prolong this child's life after it was determined he was blind, deaf, paralyzed, and possibly in constant pain.


----------



## JoeB131

koshergrl said:


> Treatment of the broken bones of elderly patients is an iffy thing, as well...and we all know how painful broken bones are. I imagine that the next step will be, as was already mentioned in this thread, denying treatment to the elderly because it just prolongs their agony, and there isn't much of a chance of a full recovery. You don't actually recover from old age. And they won't get the chance to try.



Again, the only reason we don't euthanize the old in this country is because we have a big socialist medical program called Medicare.  

Big insurance, that would be their go to once they started losing money.


----------



## Death Angel

Tipsycatlover said:


> Charlie Gard was denied treatment despite a willingness to pay, for only one reason. Liberals are against the advancement of medical knowledge.


THIS is what has sane folks upset.


----------



## PredFan

JoeB131 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unbelievable. What a gross abuse of power. Welcome to Socialized medicine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's look what would have happened if Charlie had his issues with Corporatized Medicine.
> 
> If Charlie was one of the Americans without insurance, he'd probably have been done months ago. But let's assume that he was lucky enough to have insurance and let's assume that the insurance company didn't declare his procedure "Experimental" and decide not to fund it.
> 
> There would come a point where the big insurance companies would have declared, "Well, we've done our part. The Gards have exceeded their maximum coverage."  The hospitals would have kept treating Charlie until his parents were bankrupted, and you wouldn't have a bunch of religious do-gooders raising money for them.
Click to expand...


Two things, nit wit:

1. Experimental procedures and treatments are often done at no cost to the patient.

2. They were able to raise over 2 million dollars from private sources. 

So again, you don't know wtf you are babbling about.


----------



## flacaltenn

Tommy Tainant said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> No -- of course..  It's all about FAIRNESS and EQUALITY of treatment. If word got out that baby was saved, by Gawdly -- they MIGHT have other Brits demanding that Brit Heath cover the treatment.
> 
> THAT --  would be unacceptable to the Gate Keepers..  Or should I say "Death Panel"....
> 
> 
> 
> Saved from what? Are you a doctor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saved from the progress of a disease that a MONTH AGO -- MIGHT have been arrested by an American doctor on a trial program. You know that -- why are you dogging me?  That doctor suggested a 15 to 50% chance of stopping and reversing the disease with cutting edge gene therapy..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are misinformed.
> 
> A cruel and ignorant campaign | MelaniePhillips.com
> 
> *The hospital statement contains two particularly devastating passages. The first leaves the reputation of Professor Hirano in shreds.
> 
> “Professor Hirano (“the Professor”), whose laboratory research has an international reputation, is very well known to the experts at GOSH and he communicated with them about NBT treatment for Charlie at the very end of December. In January, GOSH invited the Professor to come and see Charlie. That invitation remained open at all times but was not taken up until 18 July after being extended, once again, this time by the Court.
> 
> “When the hospital was informed that the Professor had new laboratory findings causing him to believe NBT would be more beneficial to Charlie than he had previously opined, GOSH’s hope for Charlie and his parents was that that optimism would be confirmed.”
> 
> That claim of new research evidence was why the parents returned to court and re-opened the case. The judge said he was eager to hear of this new evidence and hoped it would enable him to reverse his previous ruling. The GOSH statement, however, continues:
> 
> “It was, therefore, with increasing surprise and disappointment that the hospital listened to the Professor’s fresh evidence to the Court. On 13 July he stated that not only had he not visited the hospital to examine Charlie but in addition, he had not read Charlie’s contemporaneous medical records or viewed Charlie’s brain imaging or read all of the second opinions about Charlie’s condition (obtained from experts all of whom had taken the opportunity to examine him and consider his records) or even read the Judge’s decision made on 11 April.
> 
> “Further, GOSH was concerned to hear the Professor state, for the first time, whilst in the witness box, that he retains a financial interest in some of the NBT compounds he proposed prescribing for Charlie. Devastatingly, the information obtained since 13 July gives no cause for optimism. Rather, it confirms that whilst NBT may well assist others in the future, it cannot and could not have assisted Charlie.”
> 
> In other words, there never was any hope for Charlie – and the claim that
> fresh research evidence provided some new hope was wholly without foundation and came from someone who had never even examined the child.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely NOTHING devasting there. The condition we're discussing has KNOWN progressions. And the researcher was more familiar with these facts than probably the attending physicians provided by Brit Health.
> 
> There would be NO REASON to come visit the child if the ENTIRE Brit Govt was saying no.. None whatsoever. He's not a care-taker or there to comfort parents -- he's a researcher.
> 
> If the Govt hadn't definitely RULED OUT allowing that family to travel for treatment, there WOULD have been a visit and an evaluation. Either by the Principal Investigator or one of his associates.
> 
> Furthermore -- *EVEN IF -- the American Doctor wasn't gonna to get embroiled in this and COULD NOT help Charlie, YOU need to recognize that under those conditions, CHARLIE could have helped THOUSANDS of other kids with this condition.*  You don't really THINK.  You react instinctively and politically..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you are misinformed. The British Govt plays no part in this. Dr Hirano was actually invited over by GOSH on more than one occasion but did not bother to do so. The decisions on Charlies care were taken by the Doctors at GOSH in line with the  accepted standards in the UK. The parents disagreed and it went to court. The Judges,all independent, heard the evidence and backed the hospital. The courts in the UK have a duty to consider the childs best interest. I understand that isnt the case in the US.
> 
> You seem to be looking for a bad guy when there isnt one.
> 
> Think about it for a while. The easiest thing for the hospital would have been to have sent him to the US. No fuss and no comebacks. They should be applauded for sticking up for the poor child.
Click to expand...


That's a whimpy ass dodge.. And you're just defending the indefensible because of the partisan stick up you ass.

American doctors and researchers are NOT wasting their time as POLITICAL ADVOCATES.  They have no standing in the rights of the child or the parents. So you could invite an ENTIRE SYMPOSIUM of Americans over for a wasteful debate on gene therapy for mitochondrial diseases, but LAWS and COURTS stood in the way of parental ADVOCACY and rights.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

This case is just an example of how devastating socialized medicine can be once the single payer decides that a sick person is better off dead.  In your best interests, an individual can be denied care even if there is an ability to pay.  This is what is horrifying to most sane people.   

Today Charlie Gard, tomorrow its the 90 year old grandfather who needs a new hip and has the money to pay for it. The next day it can be a blind teen in a wheel chair whose parents want to pay for eye surgery so the kid can see again.

There is no limit on which the single payer can determine a life worthless to the point where they may not pay for their own medical care.


----------



## Old Rocks

PredFan said:


> A Socialized Medicine Death Panel killed that child.


No, you fucked up liar. A genetic disease for which there is not a present cure killed that baby. Perhaps in a couple of decades, we will be able to change the genetics in a whole body and cure such a disease. But the children born with that disorder are doomed to die until we can do that. Mother nature also makes mistakes. And, by the way, what happened to the mercy of God?


----------



## EvilCat Breath

If socialized medicine is successful in preventing all experimental treatment there will never be a cure.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Old Rocks said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Socialized Medicine Death Panel killed that child.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you fucked up liar. A genetic disease for which there is not a present cure killed that baby. Perhaps in a couple of decades, we will be able to change the genetics in a whole body and cure such a disease. But the children born with that disorder are doomed to die until we can do that. Mother nature also makes mistakes. And, by the way, what happened to the mercy of God?
Click to expand...


No the death panels stood in the way..

You got what you wished for .. you wanted to see Charlie die as a political toy bitch.. you got your wish .

.


----------



## Wyatt earp

bodecea said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Gard was denied treatment despite a willingness to pay, for only one reason.  Liberals are against the advancement of medical knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> so you're upset this child wasn't a guinea pig.
Click to expand...



And your alternative was drag it out so he die....

.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Moonglow said:


> Kids dies every hour of everyday, yet only one child get's a pseudo representation because of a healthcare system and what doctors said about the case..


----------



## Wyatt earp

bear513 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kids dies every hour of everyday, yet only one child get's a pseudo representation because of a healthcare system and what doctors said about the case..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 141322
Click to expand...



And to think moonglow you're a liberal and I am a conservative..I have more god damn heart then you will ever have..


.


----------



## Mindful

Before I  make a judgement, I should ask myself how would I think feel and behave if I was the mother of baby Charlie Gard.


----------



## JoeB131

PredFan said:


> Two things, nit wit:
> 
> 1. Experimental procedures and treatments are often done at no cost to the patient.
> 
> 2. They were able to raise over 2 million dollars from private sources.
> 
> So again, you don't know wtf you are babbling about.



The only reason he was able to raise 2 million was because he became a celebrity for the "We don't want us no socialized medicine" crowd.  

If he was sick in this country and his insurance company cut him off, you wouldn't have given a shit.  



Tipsycatlover said:


> If socialized medicine is successful in preventing all experimental treatment there will never be a cure.



Sure there's a cure. It's called genetic screening so the people who would create such a child never conceive one to start with.  



Tipsycatlover said:


> This case is just an example of how devastating socialized medicine can be once the single payer decides that a sick person is better off dead. In your best interests, an individual can be denied care even if there is an ability to pay. This is what is horrifying to most sane people.
> 
> Today Charlie Gard, tomorrow its the 90 year old grandfather who needs a new hip and has the money to pay for it. The next day it can be a blind teen in a wheel chair whose parents want to pay for eye surgery so the kid can see again.
> 
> There is no limit on which the single payer can determine a life worthless to the point where they may not pay for their own medical care.



But again, how is that any different than what Corporate Medicine does every day? 

Do you think Cigna or Blue Cross would give an insurance policy to a 90 year old who needs a hip replacement? Of course they wouldn't. 

The thing is, for every Charlie Gard, there is a Nataline Sarkisyan. 

Nataline was the young lady who was denied a liver transplant by Cigna AFTER her father paid for insurance, because CIGNA determined that the procedure was "experimental" because she only had a 50% chance of living 6 months. It wasn't doctors who made that decision, it was accountants at an insurance company that went on to pay it's CEO a NINE FIGURE retirement package.  

(I've had my own adventures with Cigna, so I'm biased.)


----------



## JoeB131

Mindful said:


> Before I  make a judgement, I should ask myself how would I think feel and behave if I was the mother of baby Charlie Gard.



Not really what is being discussed here....


----------



## Mindful

JoeB131 said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before I  make a judgement, I should ask myself how would I think feel and behave if I was the mother of baby Charlie Gard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really what is being discussed here....
Click to expand...


Well it should be. In part at least.


----------



## PredFan

Old Rocks said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Socialized Medicine Death Panel killed that child.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you fucked up liar. A genetic disease for which there is not a present cure killed that baby. Perhaps in a couple of decades, we will be able to change the genetics in a whole body and cure such a disease. But the children born with that disorder are doomed to die until we can do that. Mother nature also makes mistakes. And, by the way, what happened to the mercy of God?
Click to expand...


Socialized medicine killed the kid. Just because you don't like what it says about your party's golden calf, doesn't make it less true.


----------



## Moonglow

Mindful said:


> Before I  make a judgement, I should ask myself how would I think feel and behave if I was the mother of baby Charlie Gard.


Desperate to save him at any cost..Unless Munchausen by proxy is diagnosed..


----------



## PredFan

JoeB131 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two things, nit wit:
> 
> 1. Experimental procedures and treatments are often done at no cost to the patient.
> 
> 2. They were able to raise over 2 million dollars from private sources.
> 
> So again, you don't know wtf you are babbling about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason he was able to raise 2 million was because he became a celebrity for the "We don't want us no socialized medicine" crowd.
> 
> If he was sick in this country and his insurance company cut him off, you wouldn't have given a shit.
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> If socialized medicine is successful in preventing all experimental treatment there will never be a cure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure there's a cure. It's called genetic screening so the people who would create such a child never conceive one to start with.
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> This case is just an example of how devastating socialized medicine can be once the single payer decides that a sick person is better off dead. In your best interests, an individual can be denied care even if there is an ability to pay. This is what is horrifying to most sane people.
> 
> Today Charlie Gard, tomorrow its the 90 year old grandfather who needs a new hip and has the money to pay for it. The next day it can be a blind teen in a wheel chair whose parents want to pay for eye surgery so the kid can see again.
> 
> There is no limit on which the single payer can determine a life worthless to the point where they may not pay for their own medical care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But again, how is that any different than what Corporate Medicine does every day?
> 
> Do you think Cigna or Blue Cross would give an insurance policy to a 90 year old who needs a hip replacement? Of course they wouldn't.
> 
> The thing is, for every Charlie Gard, there is a Nataline Sarkisyan.
> 
> Nataline was the young lady who was denied a liver transplant by Cigna AFTER her father paid for insurance, because CIGNA determined that the procedure was "experimental" because she only had a 50% chance of living 6 months. It wasn't doctors who made that decision, it was accountants at an insurance company that went on to pay it's CEO a NINE FIGURE retirement package.
> 
> (I've had my own adventures with Cigna, so I'm biased.)
Click to expand...


Complete bull shit. People donate money all the time for parents of children fighting deadly diseases. Again, you are dead wrong. Time to be an adult and admit you are wrong.


----------



## badger2

Yes, we will be able to change the circumstances. That is why Charlie Gard's story is on the cancer thread. Duh.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

flacaltenn said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saved from what? Are you a doctor?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saved from the progress of a disease that a MONTH AGO -- MIGHT have been arrested by an American doctor on a trial program. You know that -- why are you dogging me?  That doctor suggested a 15 to 50% chance of stopping and reversing the disease with cutting edge gene therapy..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are misinformed.
> 
> A cruel and ignorant campaign | MelaniePhillips.com
> 
> *The hospital statement contains two particularly devastating passages. The first leaves the reputation of Professor Hirano in shreds.
> 
> “Professor Hirano (“the Professor”), whose laboratory research has an international reputation, is very well known to the experts at GOSH and he communicated with them about NBT treatment for Charlie at the very end of December. In January, GOSH invited the Professor to come and see Charlie. That invitation remained open at all times but was not taken up until 18 July after being extended, once again, this time by the Court.
> 
> “When the hospital was informed that the Professor had new laboratory findings causing him to believe NBT would be more beneficial to Charlie than he had previously opined, GOSH’s hope for Charlie and his parents was that that optimism would be confirmed.”
> 
> That claim of new research evidence was why the parents returned to court and re-opened the case. The judge said he was eager to hear of this new evidence and hoped it would enable him to reverse his previous ruling. The GOSH statement, however, continues:
> 
> “It was, therefore, with increasing surprise and disappointment that the hospital listened to the Professor’s fresh evidence to the Court. On 13 July he stated that not only had he not visited the hospital to examine Charlie but in addition, he had not read Charlie’s contemporaneous medical records or viewed Charlie’s brain imaging or read all of the second opinions about Charlie’s condition (obtained from experts all of whom had taken the opportunity to examine him and consider his records) or even read the Judge’s decision made on 11 April.
> 
> “Further, GOSH was concerned to hear the Professor state, for the first time, whilst in the witness box, that he retains a financial interest in some of the NBT compounds he proposed prescribing for Charlie. Devastatingly, the information obtained since 13 July gives no cause for optimism. Rather, it confirms that whilst NBT may well assist others in the future, it cannot and could not have assisted Charlie.”
> 
> In other words, there never was any hope for Charlie – and the claim that
> fresh research evidence provided some new hope was wholly without foundation and came from someone who had never even examined the child.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely NOTHING devasting there. The condition we're discussing has KNOWN progressions. And the researcher was more familiar with these facts than probably the attending physicians provided by Brit Health.
> 
> There would be NO REASON to come visit the child if the ENTIRE Brit Govt was saying no.. None whatsoever. He's not a care-taker or there to comfort parents -- he's a researcher.
> 
> If the Govt hadn't definitely RULED OUT allowing that family to travel for treatment, there WOULD have been a visit and an evaluation. Either by the Principal Investigator or one of his associates.
> 
> Furthermore -- *EVEN IF -- the American Doctor wasn't gonna to get embroiled in this and COULD NOT help Charlie, YOU need to recognize that under those conditions, CHARLIE could have helped THOUSANDS of other kids with this condition.*  You don't really THINK.  You react instinctively and politically..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you are misinformed. The British Govt plays no part in this. Dr Hirano was actually invited over by GOSH on more than one occasion but did not bother to do so. The decisions on Charlies care were taken by the Doctors at GOSH in line with the  accepted standards in the UK. The parents disagreed and it went to court. The Judges,all independent, heard the evidence and backed the hospital. The courts in the UK have a duty to consider the childs best interest. I understand that isnt the case in the US.
> 
> You seem to be looking for a bad guy when there isnt one.
> 
> Think about it for a while. The easiest thing for the hospital would have been to have sent him to the US. No fuss and no comebacks. They should be applauded for sticking up for the poor child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a whimpy ass dodge.. And you're just defending the indefensible because of the partisan stick up you ass.
> 
> American doctors and researchers are NOT wasting their time as POLITICAL ADVOCATES.  They have no standing in the rights of the child or the parents. So you could invite an ENTIRE SYMPOSIUM of Americans over for a wasteful debate on gene therapy for mitochondrial diseases, but LAWS and COURTS stood in the way of parental ADVOCACY and rights.
Click to expand...

Well I will say it slowly.
The hospital invited Dr Hirano over to see if he could help. Nobody was standing in the way of that. The courts nor the evil left wing communist tory government were not parties to that.
He was invited as an expert in the field and nothing else.
I am not clear what debate you are referring to.You seem to be trying to drag a load of baggage into what is a straightforward situation.


----------



## PredFan

Here is the final word on Charlie Gard and the evils of Socialized medicine:

In socialized medicine, your child, your spouse, your elderly parent, does not belong to you, they belong to the government who is paying the bills.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

PredFan said:


> Here is the final word on Charlie Gard and the evils of Socialized medicine:
> 
> In socialized medicine, your child, your spouse, your elderly parent, does not belong to you, they belong to the government who is paying the bills.


People arent property and the rights of the child outweigh those of the parents. Its not a difficult concept to grasp.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

PredFan said:


> Here is the final word on Charlie Gard and the evils of Socialized medicine:
> 
> In socialized medicine, your child, your spouse, your elderly parent, does not belong to you, they belong to the government who is paying the bills.


Socialized medicine is veterinary medicine applied to humans.  You pay the dog's bills.  As the owner single payer, if you don't want to pay for a flea treatment, the loss of blood could kill the dog.  No one cares.   In socialized medicine the government is the owner we are all the pets.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

JoeB131 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two things, nit wit:
> 
> 1. Experimental procedures and treatments are often done at no cost to the patient.
> 
> 2. They were able to raise over 2 million dollars from private sources.
> 
> So again, you don't know wtf you are babbling about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason he was able to raise 2 million was because he became a celebrity for the "We don't want us no socialized medicine" crowd.
> 
> If he was sick in this country and his insurance company cut him off, you wouldn't have given a shit.
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> If socialized medicine is successful in preventing all experimental treatment there will never be a cure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure there's a cure. It's called genetic screening so the people who would create such a child never conceive one to start with.
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> This case is just an example of how devastating socialized medicine can be once the single payer decides that a sick person is better off dead. In your best interests, an individual can be denied care even if there is an ability to pay. This is what is horrifying to most sane people.
> 
> Today Charlie Gard, tomorrow its the 90 year old grandfather who needs a new hip and has the money to pay for it. The next day it can be a blind teen in a wheel chair whose parents want to pay for eye surgery so the kid can see again.
> 
> There is no limit on which the single payer can determine a life worthless to the point where they may not pay for their own medical care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But again, how is that any different than what Corporate Medicine does every day?
> 
> Do you think Cigna or Blue Cross would give an insurance policy to a 90 year old who needs a hip replacement? Of course they wouldn't.
> 
> The thing is, for every Charlie Gard, there is a Nataline Sarkisyan.
> 
> Nataline was the young lady who was denied a liver transplant by Cigna AFTER her father paid for insurance, because CIGNA determined that the procedure was "experimental" because she only had a 50% chance of living 6 months. It wasn't doctors who made that decision, it was accountants at an insurance company that went on to pay it's CEO a NINE FIGURE retirement package.
> 
> (I've had my own adventures with Cigna, so I'm biased.)
Click to expand...

Not the issue.

How could CIGNA prohibit treatment if the patient is paying out of pocket himself?  CIGNA can't.   The government can and does.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Tipsycatlover said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two things, nit wit:
> 
> 1. Experimental procedures and treatments are often done at no cost to the patient.
> 
> 2. They were able to raise over 2 million dollars from private sources.
> 
> So again, you don't know wtf you are babbling about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason he was able to raise 2 million was because he became a celebrity for the "We don't want us no socialized medicine" crowd.
> 
> If he was sick in this country and his insurance company cut him off, you wouldn't have given a shit.
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> If socialized medicine is successful in preventing all experimental treatment there will never be a cure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure there's a cure. It's called genetic screening so the people who would create such a child never conceive one to start with.
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> This case is just an example of how devastating socialized medicine can be once the single payer decides that a sick person is better off dead. In your best interests, an individual can be denied care even if there is an ability to pay. This is what is horrifying to most sane people.
> 
> Today Charlie Gard, tomorrow its the 90 year old grandfather who needs a new hip and has the money to pay for it. The next day it can be a blind teen in a wheel chair whose parents want to pay for eye surgery so the kid can see again.
> 
> There is no limit on which the single payer can determine a life worthless to the point where they may not pay for their own medical care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But again, how is that any different than what Corporate Medicine does every day?
> 
> Do you think Cigna or Blue Cross would give an insurance policy to a 90 year old who needs a hip replacement? Of course they wouldn't.
> 
> The thing is, for every Charlie Gard, there is a Nataline Sarkisyan.
> 
> Nataline was the young lady who was denied a liver transplant by Cigna AFTER her father paid for insurance, because CIGNA determined that the procedure was "experimental" because she only had a 50% chance of living 6 months. It wasn't doctors who made that decision, it was accountants at an insurance company that went on to pay it's CEO a NINE FIGURE retirement package.
> 
> (I've had my own adventures with Cigna, so I'm biased.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not the issue.
> 
> How could CIGNA prohibit treatment if the patient is paying out of pocket himself?  CIGNA can't.   The government can and does.
Click to expand...

There was no treatment.


----------



## badger2

Yes, after having reviewed the case, Dr. Hirano probably knew what had gone down. Too much time had passed for nucleoside replacement, which does not mean it would not have worked had it been diagnosed and treated early enough. Duh.


----------



## flacaltenn

Tommy Tainant said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saved from the progress of a disease that a MONTH AGO -- MIGHT have been arrested by an American doctor on a trial program. You know that -- why are you dogging me?  That doctor suggested a 15 to 50% chance of stopping and reversing the disease with cutting edge gene therapy..
> 
> 
> 
> You are misinformed.
> 
> A cruel and ignorant campaign | MelaniePhillips.com
> 
> *The hospital statement contains two particularly devastating passages. The first leaves the reputation of Professor Hirano in shreds.
> 
> “Professor Hirano (“the Professor”), whose laboratory research has an international reputation, is very well known to the experts at GOSH and he communicated with them about NBT treatment for Charlie at the very end of December. In January, GOSH invited the Professor to come and see Charlie. That invitation remained open at all times but was not taken up until 18 July after being extended, once again, this time by the Court.
> 
> “When the hospital was informed that the Professor had new laboratory findings causing him to believe NBT would be more beneficial to Charlie than he had previously opined, GOSH’s hope for Charlie and his parents was that that optimism would be confirmed.”
> 
> That claim of new research evidence was why the parents returned to court and re-opened the case. The judge said he was eager to hear of this new evidence and hoped it would enable him to reverse his previous ruling. The GOSH statement, however, continues:
> 
> “It was, therefore, with increasing surprise and disappointment that the hospital listened to the Professor’s fresh evidence to the Court. On 13 July he stated that not only had he not visited the hospital to examine Charlie but in addition, he had not read Charlie’s contemporaneous medical records or viewed Charlie’s brain imaging or read all of the second opinions about Charlie’s condition (obtained from experts all of whom had taken the opportunity to examine him and consider his records) or even read the Judge’s decision made on 11 April.
> 
> “Further, GOSH was concerned to hear the Professor state, for the first time, whilst in the witness box, that he retains a financial interest in some of the NBT compounds he proposed prescribing for Charlie. Devastatingly, the information obtained since 13 July gives no cause for optimism. Rather, it confirms that whilst NBT may well assist others in the future, it cannot and could not have assisted Charlie.”
> 
> In other words, there never was any hope for Charlie – and the claim that
> fresh research evidence provided some new hope was wholly without foundation and came from someone who had never even examined the child.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely NOTHING devasting there. The condition we're discussing has KNOWN progressions. And the researcher was more familiar with these facts than probably the attending physicians provided by Brit Health.
> 
> There would be NO REASON to come visit the child if the ENTIRE Brit Govt was saying no.. None whatsoever. He's not a care-taker or there to comfort parents -- he's a researcher.
> 
> If the Govt hadn't definitely RULED OUT allowing that family to travel for treatment, there WOULD have been a visit and an evaluation. Either by the Principal Investigator or one of his associates.
> 
> Furthermore -- *EVEN IF -- the American Doctor wasn't gonna to get embroiled in this and COULD NOT help Charlie, YOU need to recognize that under those conditions, CHARLIE could have helped THOUSANDS of other kids with this condition.*  You don't really THINK.  You react instinctively and politically..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you are misinformed. The British Govt plays no part in this. Dr Hirano was actually invited over by GOSH on more than one occasion but did not bother to do so. The decisions on Charlies care were taken by the Doctors at GOSH in line with the  accepted standards in the UK. The parents disagreed and it went to court. The Judges,all independent, heard the evidence and backed the hospital. The courts in the UK have a duty to consider the childs best interest. I understand that isnt the case in the US.
> 
> You seem to be looking for a bad guy when there isnt one.
> 
> Think about it for a while. The easiest thing for the hospital would have been to have sent him to the US. No fuss and no comebacks. They should be applauded for sticking up for the poor child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a whimpy ass dodge.. And you're just defending the indefensible because of the partisan stick up you ass.
> 
> American doctors and researchers are NOT wasting their time as POLITICAL ADVOCATES.  They have no standing in the rights of the child or the parents. So you could invite an ENTIRE SYMPOSIUM of Americans over for a wasteful debate on gene therapy for mitochondrial diseases, but LAWS and COURTS stood in the way of parental ADVOCACY and rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well I will say it slowly.
> The hospital invited Dr Hirano over to see if he could help. Nobody was standing in the way of that. The courts nor the evil left wing communist tory government were not parties to that.
> He was invited as an expert in the field and nothing else.
> I am not clear what debate you are referring to.You seem to be trying to drag a load of baggage into what is a straightforward situation.
Click to expand...


Let me say this E-V-E-N s-l-o-w-e-r for YOU.. * Researcher KNOWS he could give the kid a chance. *CAN'T EVALUATE without days of testing in HIS Lab. No REASON for him to come over to plea.  He MADE his case to the parents.  And it's really THEIR CALL as to whether to accept Dr. Hirano's offer.  NOT YOU.  NOT the Govt..


----------



## flacaltenn

Tommy Tainant said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saved from the progress of a disease that a MONTH AGO -- MIGHT have been arrested by an American doctor on a trial program. You know that -- why are you dogging me?  That doctor suggested a 15 to 50% chance of stopping and reversing the disease with cutting edge gene therapy..
> 
> 
> 
> You are misinformed.
> 
> A cruel and ignorant campaign | MelaniePhillips.com
> 
> *The hospital statement contains two particularly devastating passages. The first leaves the reputation of Professor Hirano in shreds.
> 
> “Professor Hirano (“the Professor”), whose laboratory research has an international reputation, is very well known to the experts at GOSH and he communicated with them about NBT treatment for Charlie at the very end of December. In January, GOSH invited the Professor to come and see Charlie. That invitation remained open at all times but was not taken up until 18 July after being extended, once again, this time by the Court.
> 
> “When the hospital was informed that the Professor had new laboratory findings causing him to believe NBT would be more beneficial to Charlie than he had previously opined, GOSH’s hope for Charlie and his parents was that that optimism would be confirmed.”
> 
> That claim of new research evidence was why the parents returned to court and re-opened the case. The judge said he was eager to hear of this new evidence and hoped it would enable him to reverse his previous ruling. The GOSH statement, however, continues:
> 
> “It was, therefore, with increasing surprise and disappointment that the hospital listened to the Professor’s fresh evidence to the Court. On 13 July he stated that not only had he not visited the hospital to examine Charlie but in addition, he had not read Charlie’s contemporaneous medical records or viewed Charlie’s brain imaging or read all of the second opinions about Charlie’s condition (obtained from experts all of whom had taken the opportunity to examine him and consider his records) or even read the Judge’s decision made on 11 April.
> 
> “Further, GOSH was concerned to hear the Professor state, for the first time, whilst in the witness box, that he retains a financial interest in some of the NBT compounds he proposed prescribing for Charlie. Devastatingly, the information obtained since 13 July gives no cause for optimism. Rather, it confirms that whilst NBT may well assist others in the future, it cannot and could not have assisted Charlie.”
> 
> In other words, there never was any hope for Charlie – and the claim that
> fresh research evidence provided some new hope was wholly without foundation and came from someone who had never even examined the child.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely NOTHING devasting there. The condition we're discussing has KNOWN progressions. And the researcher was more familiar with these facts than probably the attending physicians provided by Brit Health.
> 
> There would be NO REASON to come visit the child if the ENTIRE Brit Govt was saying no.. None whatsoever. He's not a care-taker or there to comfort parents -- he's a researcher.
> 
> If the Govt hadn't definitely RULED OUT allowing that family to travel for treatment, there WOULD have been a visit and an evaluation. Either by the Principal Investigator or one of his associates.
> 
> Furthermore -- *EVEN IF -- the American Doctor wasn't gonna to get embroiled in this and COULD NOT help Charlie, YOU need to recognize that under those conditions, CHARLIE could have helped THOUSANDS of other kids with this condition.*  You don't really THINK.  You react instinctively and politically..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you are misinformed. The British Govt plays no part in this. Dr Hirano was actually invited over by GOSH on more than one occasion but did not bother to do so. The decisions on Charlies care were taken by the Doctors at GOSH in line with the  accepted standards in the UK. The parents disagreed and it went to court. The Judges,all independent, heard the evidence and backed the hospital. The courts in the UK have a duty to consider the childs best interest. I understand that isnt the case in the US.
> 
> You seem to be looking for a bad guy when there isnt one.
> 
> Think about it for a while. The easiest thing for the hospital would have been to have sent him to the US. No fuss and no comebacks. They should be applauded for sticking up for the poor child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a whimpy ass dodge.. And you're just defending the indefensible because of the partisan stick up you ass.
> 
> American doctors and researchers are NOT wasting their time as POLITICAL ADVOCATES.  They have no standing in the rights of the child or the parents. So you could invite an ENTIRE SYMPOSIUM of Americans over for a wasteful debate on gene therapy for mitochondrial diseases, but LAWS and COURTS stood in the way of parental ADVOCACY and rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well I will say it slowly.
> The hospital invited Dr Hirano over to see if he could help. Nobody was standing in the way of that. The courts nor the evil left wing communist tory government were not parties to that.
> He was invited as an expert in the field and nothing else.
> I am not clear what debate you are referring to.You seem to be trying to drag a load of baggage into what is a straightforward situation.
Click to expand...


You're obviously not aware of Remote Medicine technology. They do SURGERY from 1000s of miles away.  I think they can electronically send all the relative medical records and test results across the Atlantic now. 

What they CAN'T DO is send a $80M specialized biochem lab on a plane with Dr Hirano..


----------



## PredFan

Tommy Tainant said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the final word on Charlie Gard and the evils of Socialized medicine:
> 
> In socialized medicine, your child, your spouse, your elderly parent, does not belong to you, they belong to the government who is paying the bills.
> 
> 
> 
> People arent property and the rights of the child outweigh those of the parents. Its not a difficult concept to grasp.
Click to expand...


The parents and guardians speak for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. Unless you live in a country with socialized medicine then the government and the courts decide. You belong to them. Your child belongs to them. It's not a difficult truth to grasp.


----------



## flacaltenn

Tommy Tainant said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the final word on Charlie Gard and the evils of Socialized medicine:
> 
> In socialized medicine, your child, your spouse, your elderly parent, does not belong to you, they belong to the government who is paying the bills.
> 
> 
> 
> People arent property and the rights of the child outweigh those of the parents. Its not a difficult concept to grasp.
Click to expand...


AND YOU determine the medical care for the child. Because YOU will evaluate the risks and outcomes. That's the problem --- right there. NOT always the interests of the child. Child wasn't given the 15 to 50% chance of remission. You've become totally politically jaded and inconsiderate of the "welfare of someone ELSE'S child"..


----------



## badger2

Yes indeed, remoteness can be a virtue: infrared-sensing drones perched and re-energizing in the sun on the towers along the Reaper's Line, aka the U.S.-Mexican border.

We will get off our rumps and further develop various technologies.

Butterfly Meets Drone

One trajectory for nucleoside replacement in mitochondrial depletion syndromes links to the pteridines in butterfly wings:

'Prenatal Diagnosis. 1.) Analysis of pterins in amniotic fluid. 2.) Measurement of enzyme activities in fetal blood cells (GTPCH, PPH4S, DHPR) or cultured amniocytes (DHPR).'
(Blau and Curtius, Inborn Errors in Tetrahydrobiopterin Metabolism, in Chemistry and Biology of Pteridines, 1989)


----------



## koshergrl

Tommy Tainant said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the final word on Charlie Gard and the evils of Socialized medicine:
> 
> In socialized medicine, your child, your spouse, your elderly parent, does not belong to you, they belong to the government who is paying the bills.
> 
> 
> 
> People arent property and the rights of the child outweigh those of the parents. Its not a difficult concept to grasp.
Click to expand...


The rights of the child and the parents outweigh the rights of the *state* to deny them treatment.

What happened to the whole "everybody has a right to healthcare" BS you baby killers are always touting? apparently you pigs think that means "the state has the right to decide who gets treatment, and who doesn't."

Which is one of the major problems the decent people have had with government health care all along. It always ends up being about who the state is allowed to kill off.


----------



## Coyote

I think this child has been used, and it's a bit shameful.  I listened to a British politician (conservative) being interviewed on this.  Out of everyone arguing for the treatment outside the parents -  none had seen the medical evidence on the child's condition.  Not even the doctor offering the supposed treatment (who had a financial interest in it).  He was invited to Britain in January to see the child and all his medical records and he didn't go.  American politicians - in the current political atmosphere of repealing ACA are using it as political weapon against "socialized" medicine - that is exactly why there is so much attention focused on him.  But it's not a fight between "socialized medicine" and a baby's life.  As this conservative MP pointed out - socialized medicine is not perfect, but in this case it's medical ethics vs. the parents.  She also pointed out that the unacknowledged tragedy of this was prolonging the baby's agony and prolonging the parents agony when they needed to come to terms with the reality of their baby's condition.  The baby became a political pawn.


----------



## Coyote

PredFan said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the final word on Charlie Gard and the evils of Socialized medicine:
> 
> In socialized medicine, your child, your spouse, your elderly parent, does not belong to you, they belong to the government who is paying the bills.
> 
> 
> 
> People arent property and the rights of the child outweigh those of the parents. Its not a difficult concept to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The parents and guardians speak for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. Unless you live in a country with socialized medicine then the government and the courts decide. You belong to them. Your child belongs to them. It's not a difficult truth to grasp.
Click to expand...


Not always.  Sometimes the courts are needed to speak for the voiceless, because what the parents are doing is child abuse.  A child isn't property.


----------



## badger2

What will eventually trump the courts and ACA politics will be the evolving technologies for these problems, which will make obsolete the term "pawn."


----------



## Coyote

..


badger2 said:


> What will eventually trump the courts and ACA politics will be the evolving technologies for these problems, which will make obsolete the term "pawn."


 
Agree.  This should not have become a political football.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

It should not have gone beyond the treatment and the ability to pay for such treatment.  The only interest the courts have is the interest of an owner in his dog. 

Now that this has worked so well, do not be surprised if ability to pay is no impediment to the power of the government to order the withholding of medical care.  Any medical care for any person.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

flacaltenn said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are misinformed.
> 
> A cruel and ignorant campaign | MelaniePhillips.com
> 
> *The hospital statement contains two particularly devastating passages. The first leaves the reputation of Professor Hirano in shreds.
> 
> “Professor Hirano (“the Professor”), whose laboratory research has an international reputation, is very well known to the experts at GOSH and he communicated with them about NBT treatment for Charlie at the very end of December. In January, GOSH invited the Professor to come and see Charlie. That invitation remained open at all times but was not taken up until 18 July after being extended, once again, this time by the Court.
> 
> “When the hospital was informed that the Professor had new laboratory findings causing him to believe NBT would be more beneficial to Charlie than he had previously opined, GOSH’s hope for Charlie and his parents was that that optimism would be confirmed.”
> 
> That claim of new research evidence was why the parents returned to court and re-opened the case. The judge said he was eager to hear of this new evidence and hoped it would enable him to reverse his previous ruling. The GOSH statement, however, continues:
> 
> “It was, therefore, with increasing surprise and disappointment that the hospital listened to the Professor’s fresh evidence to the Court. On 13 July he stated that not only had he not visited the hospital to examine Charlie but in addition, he had not read Charlie’s contemporaneous medical records or viewed Charlie’s brain imaging or read all of the second opinions about Charlie’s condition (obtained from experts all of whom had taken the opportunity to examine him and consider his records) or even read the Judge’s decision made on 11 April.
> 
> “Further, GOSH was concerned to hear the Professor state, for the first time, whilst in the witness box, that he retains a financial interest in some of the NBT compounds he proposed prescribing for Charlie. Devastatingly, the information obtained since 13 July gives no cause for optimism. Rather, it confirms that whilst NBT may well assist others in the future, it cannot and could not have assisted Charlie.”
> 
> In other words, there never was any hope for Charlie – and the claim that
> fresh research evidence provided some new hope was wholly without foundation and came from someone who had never even examined the child.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely NOTHING devasting there. The condition we're discussing has KNOWN progressions. And the researcher was more familiar with these facts than probably the attending physicians provided by Brit Health.
> 
> There would be NO REASON to come visit the child if the ENTIRE Brit Govt was saying no.. None whatsoever. He's not a care-taker or there to comfort parents -- he's a researcher.
> 
> If the Govt hadn't definitely RULED OUT allowing that family to travel for treatment, there WOULD have been a visit and an evaluation. Either by the Principal Investigator or one of his associates.
> 
> Furthermore -- *EVEN IF -- the American Doctor wasn't gonna to get embroiled in this and COULD NOT help Charlie, YOU need to recognize that under those conditions, CHARLIE could have helped THOUSANDS of other kids with this condition.*  You don't really THINK.  You react instinctively and politically..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you are misinformed. The British Govt plays no part in this. Dr Hirano was actually invited over by GOSH on more than one occasion but did not bother to do so. The decisions on Charlies care were taken by the Doctors at GOSH in line with the  accepted standards in the UK. The parents disagreed and it went to court. The Judges,all independent, heard the evidence and backed the hospital. The courts in the UK have a duty to consider the childs best interest. I understand that isnt the case in the US.
> 
> You seem to be looking for a bad guy when there isnt one.
> 
> Think about it for a while. The easiest thing for the hospital would have been to have sent him to the US. No fuss and no comebacks. They should be applauded for sticking up for the poor child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a whimpy ass dodge.. And you're just defending the indefensible because of the partisan stick up you ass.
> 
> American doctors and researchers are NOT wasting their time as POLITICAL ADVOCATES.  They have no standing in the rights of the child or the parents. So you could invite an ENTIRE SYMPOSIUM of Americans over for a wasteful debate on gene therapy for mitochondrial diseases, but LAWS and COURTS stood in the way of parental ADVOCACY and rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well I will say it slowly.
> The hospital invited Dr Hirano over to see if he could help. Nobody was standing in the way of that. The courts nor the evil left wing communist tory government were not parties to that.
> He was invited as an expert in the field and nothing else.
> I am not clear what debate you are referring to.You seem to be trying to drag a load of baggage into what is a straightforward situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're obviously not aware of Remote Medicine technology. They do SURGERY from 1000s of miles away.  I think they can electronically send all the relative medical records and test results across the Atlantic now.
> 
> What they CAN'T DO is send a $80M specialized biochem lab on a plane with Dr Hirano..
Click to expand...

What he could have done is look at the childs records. He could have done that in his own bedroom. You havent given one reason why that could not have happened.
Is it possible he only came to the UK when he found out how much money the Gards were sitting on ?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

PredFan said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the final word on Charlie Gard and the evils of Socialized medicine:
> 
> In socialized medicine, your child, your spouse, your elderly parent, does not belong to you, they belong to the government who is paying the bills.
> 
> 
> 
> People arent property and the rights of the child outweigh those of the parents. Its not a difficult concept to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The parents and guardians speak for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. Unless you live in a country with socialized medicine then the government and the courts decide. You belong to them. Your child belongs to them. It's not a difficult truth to grasp.
Click to expand...

There are parents who would deny their children treatment because of their own personal religious beliefs. Who speaks up for the child then ?


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Tommy Tainant said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the final word on Charlie Gard and the evils of Socialized medicine:
> 
> In socialized medicine, your child, your spouse, your elderly parent, does not belong to you, they belong to the government who is paying the bills.
> 
> 
> 
> People arent property and the rights of the child outweigh those of the parents. Its not a difficult concept to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The parents and guardians speak for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. Unless you live in a country with socialized medicine then the government and the courts decide. You belong to them. Your child belongs to them. It's not a difficult truth to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are parents who would deny their children treatment because of their own personal religious beliefs. Who speaks up for the child then ?
Click to expand...

You are saying that only the government has the power to deny treatment no matter that the patient can pay.  They don't even need to give a reason.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Tipsycatlover said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the final word on Charlie Gard and the evils of Socialized medicine:
> 
> In socialized medicine, your child, your spouse, your elderly parent, does not belong to you, they belong to the government who is paying the bills.
> 
> 
> 
> People arent property and the rights of the child outweigh those of the parents. Its not a difficult concept to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The parents and guardians speak for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. Unless you live in a country with socialized medicine then the government and the courts decide. You belong to them. Your child belongs to them. It's not a difficult truth to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are parents who would deny their children treatment because of their own personal religious beliefs. Who speaks up for the child then ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are saying that only the government has the power to deny treatment no matter that the patient can pay.  They don't even need to give a reason.
Click to expand...

The government has no say in this. It is a matter for the Drs, parents and the court. The Drs made a decision that the treatment would not benefit the child. The parents disagreed, the court looked at the evidence,including the testimony of Hirano and agreed with GOSH.
Are you really saying that the Drs at GOSH would deliberately deny the child treatment that might save him ?
This isnt America you know.


----------



## koshergrl

Tommy Tainant said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the final word on Charlie Gard and the evils of Socialized medicine:
> 
> In socialized medicine, your child, your spouse, your elderly parent, does not belong to you, they belong to the government who is paying the bills.
> 
> 
> 
> People arent property and the rights of the child outweigh those of the parents. Its not a difficult concept to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The parents and guardians speak for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. Unless you live in a country with socialized medicine then the government and the courts decide. You belong to them. Your child belongs to them. It's not a difficult truth to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are parents who would deny their children treatment because of their own personal religious beliefs. Who speaks up for the child then ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are saying that only the government has the power to deny treatment no matter that the patient can pay.  They don't even need to give a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government has no say in this. It is a matter for the Drs, parents and the court. The Drs made a decision that the treatment would not benefit the child. The parents disagreed, the court looked at the evidence,including the testimony of Hirano and agreed with GOSH.
> Are you really saying that the Drs at GOSH would deliberately deny the child treatment that might save him ?
> This isnt America you know.
Click to expand...

It is the government who said they couldn't take the kid. 
Not the doctors. 

And they did deliberately deny him treatment, by refusing to release him to be taken elsewhere. "You don't like your current treatment, fuck you!"


----------



## koshergrl

That is one situation where I would, literally, kill people. If my kid goes into a hospital, and I decide to remove him and they try to stop me, people are going to die.


----------



## Coyote

Tipsycatlover said:


> *It should not have gone beyond the treatment and the ability to pay for such treatment*.  The only interest the courts have is the interest of an owner in his dog.
> 
> Now that this has worked so well, do not be surprised if ability to pay is no impediment to the power of the government to order the withholding of medical care.  Any medical care for any person.




Not necessarily...because a child is not property and the child has rights as well.  The courts can become involved if the parent's quest for medical intervention runs counter to established practices and ethics.


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> People arent property and the rights of the child outweigh those of the parents. Its not a difficult concept to grasp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The parents and guardians speak for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. Unless you live in a country with socialized medicine then the government and the courts decide. You belong to them. Your child belongs to them. It's not a difficult truth to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are parents who would deny their children treatment because of their own personal religious beliefs. Who speaks up for the child then ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are saying that only the government has the power to deny treatment no matter that the patient can pay.  They don't even need to give a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government has no say in this. It is a matter for the Drs, parents and the court. The Drs made a decision that the treatment would not benefit the child. The parents disagreed, the court looked at the evidence,including the testimony of Hirano and agreed with GOSH.
> Are you really saying that the Drs at GOSH would deliberately deny the child treatment that might save him ?
> This isnt America you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the government who said they couldn't take the kid.
> Not the doctors.
> 
> And they did deliberately deny him treatment, by refusing to release him to be taken elsewhere. "You don't like your current treatment, fuck you!"
Click to expand...


It was actually the doctors, not "the government" - it was medical ethics vs parents.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

koshergrl said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> People arent property and the rights of the child outweigh those of the parents. Its not a difficult concept to grasp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The parents and guardians speak for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. Unless you live in a country with socialized medicine then the government and the courts decide. You belong to them. Your child belongs to them. It's not a difficult truth to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are parents who would deny their children treatment because of their own personal religious beliefs. Who speaks up for the child then ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are saying that only the government has the power to deny treatment no matter that the patient can pay.  They don't even need to give a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government has no say in this. It is a matter for the Drs, parents and the court. The Drs made a decision that the treatment would not benefit the child. The parents disagreed, the court looked at the evidence,including the testimony of Hirano and agreed with GOSH.
> Are you really saying that the Drs at GOSH would deliberately deny the child treatment that might save him ?
> This isnt America you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the government who said they couldn't take the kid.
> Not the doctors.
> 
> And they did deliberately deny him treatment, by refusing to release him to be taken elsewhere. "You don't like your current treatment, fuck you!"
Click to expand...


Sigh . Our courts are independent of the government. Our Judges are independent and are not political appointees. And there was no treatment that could help this child , which is why the court made the decision that it did. You obviously have zero understanding of how things are in the UK.

Why do you persist in abusing this child by trying to make him a political football ?   

_*It is the government who said they couldn't take the kid. 
Not the doctors.
*_
Just take a moment and consider the utter stupidity of this statement.

Do you think that the "deep state" sit around looking for ways to oppress this infant ?

Why would they do that ?

To save money ? Nope, they would have saved money by sending him to the States.
To make themselves popular ? Hardly.
To undermine the Medics ? Nope, the Medics were responsible for all of this.
To direct a verdict through the courts ? Well it might work like that in the US but British Judges are used to telling the government to fuck off.

You got nothing apart from some ignorant half baked shite that you have speed read off some nutty fundie website. 

Here is a FACT - nobody,not one, medical expert, thought that shipping this child to the US would benefit him.


----------



## Carter Malone

Grampa Murked U said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a day of celebration among the death cultists! Baby killers, rejoice!
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb statement. You are such a disgusting hateful person
Click to expand...


Wow. I agree. No one celebrates the deaths of tiny sick babies. 

koshergrl What is disgusting is that conservatives and right wingers don't feel the same Christian compassion for hungry children in the US as well as refugees around the world.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## PredFan

Coyote said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the final word on Charlie Gard and the evils of Socialized medicine:
> 
> In socialized medicine, your child, your spouse, your elderly parent, does not belong to you, they belong to the government who is paying the bills.
> 
> 
> 
> People arent property and the rights of the child outweigh those of the parents. Its not a difficult concept to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The parents and guardians speak for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. Unless you live in a country with socialized medicine then the government and the courts decide. You belong to them. Your child belongs to them. It's not a difficult truth to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not always.  Sometimes the courts are needed to speak for the voiceless, because what the parents are doing is child abuse.  A child isn't property.
Click to expand...


In Socialized Medicine, a child is the property of the state. That is blatantly obvious in this case. There was no child abuse, it was exactly the opposite.


----------



## PredFan

Tommy Tainant said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the final word on Charlie Gard and the evils of Socialized medicine:
> 
> In socialized medicine, your child, your spouse, your elderly parent, does not belong to you, they belong to the government who is paying the bills.
> 
> 
> 
> People arent property and the rights of the child outweigh those of the parents. Its not a difficult concept to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The parents and guardians speak for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. Unless you live in a country with socialized medicine then the government and the courts decide. You belong to them. Your child belongs to them. It's not a difficult truth to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are parents who would deny their children treatment because of their own personal religious beliefs. Who speaks up for the child then ?
Click to expand...


Irrelevant. 
Stop talking, admit you are wrong, be an adult. It won't hurt.


----------



## Death Angel

Carter Malone said:


> koshergrl What is disgusting is that conservatives and right wingers don't feel the same Christian compassion for hungry children in the US as well as refugees around the world


How do you come to that conclusion? Pretty stupid conclusion, BTW


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It should not have gone beyond the treatment and the ability to pay for such treatment*.  The only interest the courts have is the interest of an owner in his dog.
> 
> Now that this has worked so well, do not be surprised if ability to pay is no impediment to the power of the government to order the withholding of medical care.  Any medical care for any person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily...because a child is not property and the child has rights as well.  The courts can become involved if the parent's quest for medical intervention runs counter to established practices and ethics.
Click to expand...


Bullshit, the court should have no say in it one way or the other. 

you're just totally committed to government ownership of people, aren't you?


----------



## koshergrl

Carter Malone said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a day of celebration among the death cultists! Baby killers, rejoice!
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb statement. You are such a disgusting hateful person
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. I agree. No one celebrates the deaths of tiny sick babies.
> 
> koshergrl What is disgusting is that conservatives and right wingers don't feel the same Christian compassion for hungry children in the US as well as refugees around the world.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...


Shut the fuck up, baby killing mutant.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Carter Malone said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a day of celebration among the death cultists! Baby killers, rejoice!
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb statement. You are such a disgusting hateful person
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. I agree. No one celebrates the deaths of tiny sick babies.
> 
> koshergrl What is disgusting is that conservatives and right wingers don't feel the same Christian compassion for hungry children in the US as well as refugees around the world.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...


Christians do far more for hungry children than the left ever has or will.

That was a stupid statement


----------



## koshergrl

SassyIrishLass said:


> Carter Malone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a day of celebration among the death cultists! Baby killers, rejoice!
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb statement. You are such a disgusting hateful person
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. I agree. No one celebrates the deaths of tiny sick babies.
> 
> koshergrl What is disgusting is that conservatives and right wingers don't feel the same Christian compassion for hungry children in the US as well as refugees around the world.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians do far more for hungry children than the left ever has or will.
> 
> That was a stupid statement
Click to expand...


I see a pattern of stupidity developing.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

PredFan said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the final word on Charlie Gard and the evils of Socialized medicine:
> 
> In socialized medicine, your child, your spouse, your elderly parent, does not belong to you, they belong to the government who is paying the bills.
> 
> 
> 
> People arent property and the rights of the child outweigh those of the parents. Its not a difficult concept to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The parents and guardians speak for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. Unless you live in a country with socialized medicine then the government and the courts decide. You belong to them. Your child belongs to them. It's not a difficult truth to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are parents who would deny their children treatment because of their own personal religious beliefs. Who speaks up for the child then ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.
> Stop talking, admit you are wrong, be an adult. It won't hurt.
Click to expand...

Im not sure that I can simplify the question any further. Who speaks for the child when the parents are wrong ?


----------



## flacaltenn

Coyote said:


> I think this child has been used, and it's a bit shameful.  I listened to a British politician (conservative) being interviewed on this.  Out of everyone arguing for the treatment outside the parents -  none had seen the medical evidence on the child's condition.  Not even the doctor offering the supposed treatment (who had a financial interest in it).  He was invited to Britain in January to see the child and all his medical records and he didn't go.  American politicians - in the current political atmosphere of repealing ACA are using it as political weapon against "socialized" medicine - that is exactly why there is so much attention focused on him.  But it's not a fight between "socialized medicine" and a baby's life.  As this conservative MP pointed out - socialized medicine is not perfect, but in this case it's medical ethics vs. the parents.  She also pointed out that the unacknowledged tragedy of this was prolonging the baby's agony and prolonging the parents agony when they needed to come to terms with the reality of their baby's condition.  The baby became a political pawn.



I addressed WHY researchers in the US are not ADVOCATES for dragging folks into experimental programs. They cannot assess this remotely. No NEED to go to Britain. They can get access to every test and record without traveling. What they NEEDED was for Charlie to be in THEIR unique and very specialized lab in order to determine the eligibility for treatment. Researchers should NOT beg for experimental patients --- ever. Or get entangled in LEGAL disputes about transferring care from one system to another. 

It WAS a fight between "socialized medicine" and family rights. And families lost. All of the excuses about what the RESEARCHERS did or didn't do are MUTE -- if the Courts are gonna back up the arrogance and insensitivity of the Brit Health system... Again -- researchers are not advocates or salespeople. Don't expect them to get entangled in this. 

Charlie could have HELPED hundreds of other children afflicted with this disease. Now he's just dead....


----------



## DarkFury

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this child has been used, and it's a bit shameful.  I listened to a British politician (conservative) being interviewed on this.  Out of everyone arguing for the treatment outside the parents -  none had seen the medical evidence on the child's condition.  Not even the doctor offering the supposed treatment (who had a financial interest in it).  He was invited to Britain in January to see the child and all his medical records and he didn't go.  American politicians - in the current political atmosphere of repealing ACA are using it as political weapon against "socialized" medicine - that is exactly why there is so much attention focused on him.  But it's not a fight between "socialized medicine" and a baby's life.  As this conservative MP pointed out - socialized medicine is not perfect, but in this case it's medical ethics vs. the parents.  She also pointed out that the unacknowledged tragedy of this was prolonging the baby's agony and prolonging the parents agony when they needed to come to terms with the reality of their baby's condition.  The baby became a political pawn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed WHY researchers in the US are not ADVOCATES for dragging folks into experimental programs. They cannot assess this remotely. No NEED to go to Britain. They can get access to every test and record without traveling. What they NEEDED was for Charlie to be in THEIR unique and very specialized lab in order to determine the eligibility for treatment. Researchers should NOT beg for experimental patients --- ever. Or get entangled in LEGAL disputes about transferring care from one system to another.
> 
> It WAS a fight between "socialized medicine" and family rights. And families lost. All of the excuses about what the RESEARCHERS did or didn't do are MUTE -- if the Courts are gonna back up the arrogance and insensitivity of the Brit Health system... Again -- researchers are not advocates or salespeople. Don't expect them to get entangled in this.
> 
> Charlie could have HELPED hundreds of other children afflicted with this disease. Now he's just dead....
Click to expand...

*Damn! You were sounding like me for a bit there. I think I need to check my socks!*


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Tommy Tainant said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the final word on Charlie Gard and the evils of Socialized medicine:
> 
> In socialized medicine, your child, your spouse, your elderly parent, does not belong to you, they belong to the government who is paying the bills.
> 
> 
> 
> People arent property and the rights of the child outweigh those of the parents. Its not a difficult concept to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The parents and guardians speak for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. Unless you live in a country with socialized medicine then the government and the courts decide. You belong to them. Your child belongs to them. It's not a difficult truth to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are parents who would deny their children treatment because of their own personal religious beliefs. Who speaks up for the child then ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.
> Stop talking, admit you are wrong, be an adult. It won't hurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im not sure that I can simplify the question any further. Who speaks for the child when the parents are wrong ?
Click to expand...


If parents have the funds for any treatment it's  THEIR decsion. To prevent them from pursing it is WRONG.

At some point the child might have had a chance. Why was it denied?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this child has been used, and it's a bit shameful.  I listened to a British politician (conservative) being interviewed on this.  Out of everyone arguing for the treatment outside the parents -  none had seen the medical evidence on the child's condition.  Not even the doctor offering the supposed treatment (who had a financial interest in it).  He was invited to Britain in January to see the child and all his medical records and he didn't go.  American politicians - in the current political atmosphere of repealing ACA are using it as political weapon against "socialized" medicine - that is exactly why there is so much attention focused on him.  But it's not a fight between "socialized medicine" and a baby's life.  As this conservative MP pointed out - socialized medicine is not perfect, but in this case it's medical ethics vs. the parents.  She also pointed out that the unacknowledged tragedy of this was prolonging the baby's agony and prolonging the parents agony when they needed to come to terms with the reality of their baby's condition.  The baby became a political pawn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed WHY researchers in the US are not ADVOCATES for dragging folks into experimental programs. They cannot assess this remotely. No NEED to go to Britain. They can get access to every test and record without traveling. What they NEEDED was for Charlie to be in THEIR unique and very specialized lab in order to determine the eligibility for treatment. Researchers should NOT beg for experimental patients --- ever. Or get entangled in LEGAL disputes about transferring care from one system to another.
> 
> It WAS a fight between "socialized medicine" and family rights. And families lost. All of the excuses about what the RESEARCHERS did or didn't do are MUTE -- if the Courts are gonna back up the arrogance and insensitivity of the Brit Health system... Again -- researchers are not advocates or salespeople. Don't expect them to get entangled in this.
> 
> Charlie could have HELPED hundreds of other children afflicted with this disease. Now he's just dead....
Click to expand...

No, he is beyond pain.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

SassyIrishLass said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> People arent property and the rights of the child outweigh those of the parents. Its not a difficult concept to grasp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The parents and guardians speak for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. Unless you live in a country with socialized medicine then the government and the courts decide. You belong to them. Your child belongs to them. It's not a difficult truth to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are parents who would deny their children treatment because of their own personal religious beliefs. Who speaks up for the child then ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.
> Stop talking, admit you are wrong, be an adult. It won't hurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im not sure that I can simplify the question any further. Who speaks for the child when the parents are wrong ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If parents have the funds for any treatment it's  THEIR decsion. To prevent them from pursing it is WRONG.
> 
> At some point the child might have had a chance. Why was it denied?
Click to expand...

He had no chance and there was no cure. The child was in pain and the Medics wanted to prevent him fro suffering needlessly. They are better qualified than the parents or even you internet experts.


----------



## flacaltenn

Tommy Tainant said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely NOTHING devasting there. The condition we're discussing has KNOWN progressions. And the researcher was more familiar with these facts than probably the attending physicians provided by Brit Health.
> 
> There would be NO REASON to come visit the child if the ENTIRE Brit Govt was saying no.. None whatsoever. He's not a care-taker or there to comfort parents -- he's a researcher.
> 
> If the Govt hadn't definitely RULED OUT allowing that family to travel for treatment, there WOULD have been a visit and an evaluation. Either by the Principal Investigator or one of his associates.
> 
> Furthermore -- *EVEN IF -- the American Doctor wasn't gonna to get embroiled in this and COULD NOT help Charlie, YOU need to recognize that under those conditions, CHARLIE could have helped THOUSANDS of other kids with this condition.*  You don't really THINK.  You react instinctively and politically..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you are misinformed. The British Govt plays no part in this. Dr Hirano was actually invited over by GOSH on more than one occasion but did not bother to do so. The decisions on Charlies care were taken by the Doctors at GOSH in line with the  accepted standards in the UK. The parents disagreed and it went to court. The Judges,all independent, heard the evidence and backed the hospital. The courts in the UK have a duty to consider the childs best interest. I understand that isnt the case in the US.
> 
> You seem to be looking for a bad guy when there isnt one.
> 
> Think about it for a while. The easiest thing for the hospital would have been to have sent him to the US. No fuss and no comebacks. They should be applauded for sticking up for the poor child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a whimpy ass dodge.. And you're just defending the indefensible because of the partisan stick up you ass.
> 
> American doctors and researchers are NOT wasting their time as POLITICAL ADVOCATES.  They have no standing in the rights of the child or the parents. So you could invite an ENTIRE SYMPOSIUM of Americans over for a wasteful debate on gene therapy for mitochondrial diseases, but LAWS and COURTS stood in the way of parental ADVOCACY and rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well I will say it slowly.
> The hospital invited Dr Hirano over to see if he could help. Nobody was standing in the way of that. The courts nor the evil left wing communist tory government were not parties to that.
> He was invited as an expert in the field and nothing else.
> I am not clear what debate you are referring to.You seem to be trying to drag a load of baggage into what is a straightforward situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're obviously not aware of Remote Medicine technology. They do SURGERY from 1000s of miles away.  I think they can electronically send all the relative medical records and test results across the Atlantic now.
> 
> What they CAN'T DO is send a $80M specialized biochem lab on a plane with Dr Hirano..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What he could have done is look at the childs records. He could have done that in his own bedroom. You havent given one reason why that could not have happened.
> Is it possible he only came to the UK when he found out how much money the Gards were sitting on ?
Click to expand...


Researchers should have free access to ANY of the medical records. UNLESS Brit Health blocked that move by the parents. WHICH IN ITSELF is fucking sinister thing to do.. There is no reason to visit. The kid needed the specialized services of the Lab in the US.  What part of that don't you understand? 

I just told you, you can't put an $80M specialized lab and the folks that know the protocols on a plane. Since you don't understand the tactical challenges here -- maybe you should STFU....


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Tommy Tainant said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The parents and guardians speak for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. Unless you live in a country with socialized medicine then the government and the courts decide. You belong to them. Your child belongs to them. It's not a difficult truth to grasp.
> 
> 
> 
> There are parents who would deny their children treatment because of their own personal religious beliefs. Who speaks up for the child then ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.
> Stop talking, admit you are wrong, be an adult. It won't hurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im not sure that I can simplify the question any further. Who speaks for the child when the parents are wrong ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If parents have the funds for any treatment it's  THEIR decsion. To prevent them from pursing it is WRONG.
> 
> At some point the child might have had a chance. Why was it denied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He had no chance and there was no cure. The child was in pain and the Medics wanted to prevent him fro suffering needlessly. They are better qualified than the parents or even you internet experts.
Click to expand...


How do you know the experimental treatment wouldn't have helped? 

You don't sit down and shut up


----------



## DarkFury

*Charlie Gard gave his life to show millions of Americans the true failure of social medicine.*


----------



## Tommy Tainant

flacaltenn said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again you are misinformed. The British Govt plays no part in this. Dr Hirano was actually invited over by GOSH on more than one occasion but did not bother to do so. The decisions on Charlies care were taken by the Doctors at GOSH in line with the  accepted standards in the UK. The parents disagreed and it went to court. The Judges,all independent, heard the evidence and backed the hospital. The courts in the UK have a duty to consider the childs best interest. I understand that isnt the case in the US.
> 
> You seem to be looking for a bad guy when there isnt one.
> 
> Think about it for a while. The easiest thing for the hospital would have been to have sent him to the US. No fuss and no comebacks. They should be applauded for sticking up for the poor child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a whimpy ass dodge.. And you're just defending the indefensible because of the partisan stick up you ass.
> 
> American doctors and researchers are NOT wasting their time as POLITICAL ADVOCATES.  They have no standing in the rights of the child or the parents. So you could invite an ENTIRE SYMPOSIUM of Americans over for a wasteful debate on gene therapy for mitochondrial diseases, but LAWS and COURTS stood in the way of parental ADVOCACY and rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well I will say it slowly.
> The hospital invited Dr Hirano over to see if he could help. Nobody was standing in the way of that. The courts nor the evil left wing communist tory government were not parties to that.
> He was invited as an expert in the field and nothing else.
> I am not clear what debate you are referring to.You seem to be trying to drag a load of baggage into what is a straightforward situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're obviously not aware of Remote Medicine technology. They do SURGERY from 1000s of miles away.  I think they can electronically send all the relative medical records and test results across the Atlantic now.
> 
> What they CAN'T DO is send a $80M specialized biochem lab on a plane with Dr Hirano..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What he could have done is look at the childs records. He could have done that in his own bedroom. You havent given one reason why that could not have happened.
> Is it possible he only came to the UK when he found out how much money the Gards were sitting on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Researchers should have free access to ANY of the medical records. UNLESS Brit Health blocked that move by the parents. WHICH IN ITSELF is fucking sinister thing to do.. There is no reason to visit. The kid needed the specialized services of the Lab in the US.  What part of that don't you understand?
> 
> I just told you, you can't put an $80M specialized lab and the folks that know the protocols on a plane. Since you don't understand the tactical challenges here -- maybe you should STFU....
Click to expand...

And with all this access to the data the lab didnt bother to read any of it.Until they found out the parents had money. Maybe you should stfu and stop making politics out of this.


----------



## flacaltenn

Tommy Tainant said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this child has been used, and it's a bit shameful.  I listened to a British politician (conservative) being interviewed on this.  Out of everyone arguing for the treatment outside the parents -  none had seen the medical evidence on the child's condition.  Not even the doctor offering the supposed treatment (who had a financial interest in it).  He was invited to Britain in January to see the child and all his medical records and he didn't go.  American politicians - in the current political atmosphere of repealing ACA are using it as political weapon against "socialized" medicine - that is exactly why there is so much attention focused on him.  But it's not a fight between "socialized medicine" and a baby's life.  As this conservative MP pointed out - socialized medicine is not perfect, but in this case it's medical ethics vs. the parents.  She also pointed out that the unacknowledged tragedy of this was prolonging the baby's agony and prolonging the parents agony when they needed to come to terms with the reality of their baby's condition.  The baby became a political pawn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed WHY researchers in the US are not ADVOCATES for dragging folks into experimental programs. They cannot assess this remotely. No NEED to go to Britain. They can get access to every test and record without traveling. What they NEEDED was for Charlie to be in THEIR unique and very specialized lab in order to determine the eligibility for treatment. Researchers should NOT beg for experimental patients --- ever. Or get entangled in LEGAL disputes about transferring care from one system to another.
> 
> It WAS a fight between "socialized medicine" and family rights. And families lost. All of the excuses about what the RESEARCHERS did or didn't do are MUTE -- if the Courts are gonna back up the arrogance and insensitivity of the Brit Health system... Again -- researchers are not advocates or salespeople. Don't expect them to get entangled in this.
> 
> Charlie could have HELPED hundreds of other children afflicted with this disease. Now he's just dead....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, he is beyond pain.
Click to expand...


What do you mean NO??  You don't realize that his misfortune could save THOUSANDS of lives in the future? EVEN IF he wasn't the 15 to 50% remission result... 

Give me ONE REASON why the parents were not allowed to take that child for treatment. And stop the f'ing horseshit about "how much money" they might have had. Because that just makes you more like a socialist class warrior than anyone concerned about choices, freedom, and individual sovereignty..


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Tommy Tainant said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a whimpy ass dodge.. And you're just defending the indefensible because of the partisan stick up you ass.
> 
> American doctors and researchers are NOT wasting their time as POLITICAL ADVOCATES.  They have no standing in the rights of the child or the parents. So you could invite an ENTIRE SYMPOSIUM of Americans over for a wasteful debate on gene therapy for mitochondrial diseases, but LAWS and COURTS stood in the way of parental ADVOCACY and rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Well I will say it slowly.
> The hospital invited Dr Hirano over to see if he could help. Nobody was standing in the way of that. The courts nor the evil left wing communist tory government were not parties to that.
> He was invited as an expert in the field and nothing else.
> I am not clear what debate you are referring to.You seem to be trying to drag a load of baggage into what is a straightforward situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're obviously not aware of Remote Medicine technology. They do SURGERY from 1000s of miles away.  I think they can electronically send all the relative medical records and test results across the Atlantic now.
> 
> What they CAN'T DO is send a $80M specialized biochem lab on a plane with Dr Hirano..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What he could have done is look at the childs records. He could have done that in his own bedroom. You havent given one reason why that could not have happened.
> Is it possible he only came to the UK when he found out how much money the Gards were sitting on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Researchers should have free access to ANY of the medical records. UNLESS Brit Health blocked that move by the parents. WHICH IN ITSELF is fucking sinister thing to do.. There is no reason to visit. The kid needed the specialized services of the Lab in the US.  What part of that don't you understand?
> 
> I just told you, you can't put an $80M specialized lab and the folks that know the protocols on a plane. Since you don't understand the tactical challenges here -- maybe you should STFU....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And with all this access to the data the lab didnt bother to read any of it.Until they found out the parents had money. Maybe you should stfu and stop making politics out of this.
Click to expand...


Britain's failed socialized medicine made it political. You clowns can't get anything right


----------



## flacaltenn

Tommy Tainant said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a whimpy ass dodge.. And you're just defending the indefensible because of the partisan stick up you ass.
> 
> American doctors and researchers are NOT wasting their time as POLITICAL ADVOCATES.  They have no standing in the rights of the child or the parents. So you could invite an ENTIRE SYMPOSIUM of Americans over for a wasteful debate on gene therapy for mitochondrial diseases, but LAWS and COURTS stood in the way of parental ADVOCACY and rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Well I will say it slowly.
> The hospital invited Dr Hirano over to see if he could help. Nobody was standing in the way of that. The courts nor the evil left wing communist tory government were not parties to that.
> He was invited as an expert in the field and nothing else.
> I am not clear what debate you are referring to.You seem to be trying to drag a load of baggage into what is a straightforward situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're obviously not aware of Remote Medicine technology. They do SURGERY from 1000s of miles away.  I think they can electronically send all the relative medical records and test results across the Atlantic now.
> 
> What they CAN'T DO is send a $80M specialized biochem lab on a plane with Dr Hirano..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What he could have done is look at the childs records. He could have done that in his own bedroom. You havent given one reason why that could not have happened.
> Is it possible he only came to the UK when he found out how much money the Gards were sitting on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Researchers should have free access to ANY of the medical records. UNLESS Brit Health blocked that move by the parents. WHICH IN ITSELF is fucking sinister thing to do.. There is no reason to visit. The kid needed the specialized services of the Lab in the US.  What part of that don't you understand?
> 
> I just told you, you can't put an $80M specialized lab and the folks that know the protocols on a plane. Since you don't understand the tactical challenges here -- maybe you should STFU....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And with all this access to the data the lab didnt bother to read any of it.Until they found out the parents had money. Maybe you should stfu and stop making politics out of this.
Click to expand...


You're the ONLY one concerned here with politics and money and controlling power. The rest of us want loving families to take advantage of EVERY OPPORTUNITY to save a young child like that. And it should never be a "HERD decision".......


----------



## flacaltenn

If Brit Health wasted even a WEEK of that child's life trying to restrain the parents from transferring him, they HELP deny him that chance. And helped to deny 1000s of future Charlies the benefit of research...


----------



## flacaltenn

Tommy Tainant said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The parents and guardians speak for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. Unless you live in a country with socialized medicine then the government and the courts decide. You belong to them. Your child belongs to them. It's not a difficult truth to grasp.
> 
> 
> 
> There are parents who would deny their children treatment because of their own personal religious beliefs. Who speaks up for the child then ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are saying that only the government has the power to deny treatment no matter that the patient can pay.  They don't even need to give a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government has no say in this. It is a matter for the Drs, parents and the court. The Drs made a decision that the treatment would not benefit the child. The parents disagreed, the court looked at the evidence,including the testimony of Hirano and agreed with GOSH.
> Are you really saying that the Drs at GOSH would deliberately deny the child treatment that might save him ?
> This isnt America you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the government who said they couldn't take the kid.
> Not the doctors.
> 
> And they did deliberately deny him treatment, by refusing to release him to be taken elsewhere. "You don't like your current treatment, fuck you!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh . Our courts are independent of the government. Our Judges are independent and are not political appointees. And there was no treatment that could help this child , which is why the court made the decision that it did. You obviously have zero understanding of how things are in the UK.
> 
> Why do you persist in abusing this child by trying to make him a political football ?
> 
> _*It is the government who said they couldn't take the kid.
> Not the doctors.
> *_
> Just take a moment and consider the utter stupidity of this statement.
> 
> Do you think that the "deep state" sit around looking for ways to oppress this infant ?
> 
> Why would they do that ?
> 
> To save money ? Nope, they would have saved money by sending him to the States.
> To make themselves popular ? Hardly.
> To undermine the Medics ? Nope, the Medics were responsible for all of this.
> To direct a verdict through the courts ? Well it might work like that in the US but British Judges are used to telling the government to fuck off.
> 
> You got nothing apart from some ignorant half baked shite that you have speed read off some nutty fundie website.
> 
> Here is a FACT - nobody,not one, medical expert, thought that shipping this child to the US would benefit him.
Click to expand...


Here's an alternate fact..  The researchers DID offer a chance. It wasn't in Brit Health Services interests to allow the US researchers a chance to save the child. Especially after this whole circus made front page news. Arrogant repressive bureaucracies tend to dig in when threatened with looking bad. 

Not up to them to determine that a 15 to 50% chance of remission was NOT in the family interest. These assholes even denied "home hospice care" to the parents after it was too late to travel. They NEEDED to control the "optics" of the political implications..


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Coyote said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It should not have gone beyond the treatment and the ability to pay for such treatment*.  The only interest the courts have is the interest of an owner in his dog.
> 
> Now that this has worked so well, do not be surprised if ability to pay is no impediment to the power of the government to order the withholding of medical care.  Any medical care for any person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily...because a child is not property and the child has rights as well.  The courts can become involved if the parent's quest for medical intervention runs counter to established practices and ethics.
Click to expand...

Then the courts have developed a system of legal slavery and they own you.   

We're going to kill you in your best interests.  It's grotesque.   

No matter what the deflection, change of subject, twist,  or anything else socialists want to come up with.  Socialized medicine empowers the government to order medical care withheld even if there is an ability to pay.  There really is nothing more reprehensible.  Charlie Gard is just a symptom of a much larger and much more pernicious social disease.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

SassyIrishLass said:


> Carter Malone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a day of celebration among the death cultists! Baby killers, rejoice!
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb statement. You are such a disgusting hateful person
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. I agree. No one celebrates the deaths of tiny sick babies.
> 
> koshergrl What is disgusting is that conservatives and right wingers don't feel the same Christian compassion for hungry children in the US as well as refugees around the world.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians do far more for hungry children than the left ever has or will.
> 
> That was a stupid statement
Click to expand...

The stupid statement is that someone should not be allowed to pay for their own medical care because there are refugee children. ...

Which is the very essence of socialism.


----------



## Dr Grump

koshergrl said:


> That is one situation where I would, literally, kill people. If my kid goes into a hospital, and I decide to remove him and they try to stop me, people are going to die.



More than likely you will be the one dying...


----------



## EvilCat Breath

flacaltenn said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this child has been used, and it's a bit shameful.  I listened to a British politician (conservative) being interviewed on this.  Out of everyone arguing for the treatment outside the parents -  none had seen the medical evidence on the child's condition.  Not even the doctor offering the supposed treatment (who had a financial interest in it).  He was invited to Britain in January to see the child and all his medical records and he didn't go.  American politicians - in the current political atmosphere of repealing ACA are using it as political weapon against "socialized" medicine - that is exactly why there is so much attention focused on him.  But it's not a fight between "socialized medicine" and a baby's life.  As this conservative MP pointed out - socialized medicine is not perfect, but in this case it's medical ethics vs. the parents.  She also pointed out that the unacknowledged tragedy of this was prolonging the baby's agony and prolonging the parents agony when they needed to come to terms with the reality of their baby's condition.  The baby became a political pawn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed WHY researchers in the US are not ADVOCATES for dragging folks into experimental programs. They cannot assess this remotely. No NEED to go to Britain. They can get access to every test and record without traveling. What they NEEDED was for Charlie to be in THEIR unique and very specialized lab in order to determine the eligibility for treatment. Researchers should NOT beg for experimental patients --- ever. Or get entangled in LEGAL disputes about transferring care from one system to another.
> 
> It WAS a fight between "socialized medicine" and family rights. And families lost. All of the excuses about what the RESEARCHERS did or didn't do are MUTE -- if the Courts are gonna back up the arrogance and insensitivity of the Brit Health system... Again -- researchers are not advocates or salespeople. Don't expect them to get entangled in this.
> 
> Charlie could have HELPED hundreds of other children afflicted with this disease. Now he's just dead....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, he is beyond pain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean NO??  You don't realize that his misfortune could save THOUSANDS of lives in the future? EVEN IF he wasn't the 15 to 50% remission result...
> 
> Give me ONE REASON why the parents were not allowed to take that child for treatment. And stop the f'ing horseshit about "how much money" they might have had. Because that just makes you more like a socialist class warrior than anyone concerned about choices, freedom, and individual sovereignty..
Click to expand...

This is socialism.   The foundation of socialism.   Someone might someday develop something that would turn a profit.  That's what has to be stopped.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Tommy Tainant said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a whimpy ass dodge.. And you're just defending the indefensible because of the partisan stick up you ass.
> 
> American doctors and researchers are NOT wasting their time as POLITICAL ADVOCATES.  They have no standing in the rights of the child or the parents. So you could invite an ENTIRE SYMPOSIUM of Americans over for a wasteful debate on gene therapy for mitochondrial diseases, but LAWS and COURTS stood in the way of parental ADVOCACY and rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Well I will say it slowly.
> The hospital invited Dr Hirano over to see if he could help. Nobody was standing in the way of that. The courts nor the evil left wing communist tory government were not parties to that.
> He was invited as an expert in the field and nothing else.
> I am not clear what debate you are referring to.You seem to be trying to drag a load of baggage into what is a straightforward situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're obviously not aware of Remote Medicine technology. They do SURGERY from 1000s of miles away.  I think they can electronically send all the relative medical records and test results across the Atlantic now.
> 
> What they CAN'T DO is send a $80M specialized biochem lab on a plane with Dr Hirano..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What he could have done is look at the childs records. He could have done that in his own bedroom. You havent given one reason why that could not have happened.
> Is it possible he only came to the UK when he found out how much money the Gards were sitting on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Researchers should have free access to ANY of the medical records. UNLESS Brit Health blocked that move by the parents. WHICH IN ITSELF is fucking sinister thing to do.. There is no reason to visit. The kid needed the specialized services of the Lab in the US.  What part of that don't you understand?
> 
> I just told you, you can't put an $80M specialized lab and the folks that know the protocols on a plane. Since you don't understand the tactical challenges here -- maybe you should STFU....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And with all this access to the data the lab didnt bother to read any of it.Until they found out the parents had money. Maybe you should stfu and stop making politics out of this.
Click to expand...

Why would they look at any medical records unless the parents had the means to go to the facility?  Wouldn't that be a colossal waste of time?


----------



## badger2

Hirano said that Charlie had a 15-56% chance. Which genes were involved? Navajo Arg50Gln mutation in MPV17?


----------



## koshergrl

Tipsycatlover said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carter Malone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a day of celebration among the death cultists! Baby killers, rejoice!
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb statement. You are such a disgusting hateful person
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. I agree. No one celebrates the deaths of tiny sick babies.
> 
> koshergrl What is disgusting is that conservatives and right wingers don't feel the same Christian compassion for hungry children in the US as well as refugees around the world.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians do far more for hungry children than the left ever has or will.
> 
> That was a stupid statement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The stupid statement is that someone should not be allowed to pay for their own medical care because there are refugee children. ...
> 
> Which is the very essence of socialism.
Click to expand...

As is "parents can't be trusted to make decisions for their children. The state must be the ultimate authority!"

Fuck that shit. That's why I keep guns.


----------



## badger2

Get the  world's attention, then no follow up. What genes? The prisoners don't get to find out?


----------



## koshergrl

badger2 said:


> Hirano said that Charlie had a 15-56% chance. Which genes were involved? Navajo Arg50Gln mutation in MPV17?


Compared to 0.00 percent if he stayed in Britain and was denied treatment.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

As I've read this thread it occurred to me some people probably shouldn't be parents


----------



## koshergrl

SassyIrishLass said:


> As I've read this thread it occurred to me some people probably shouldn't be parents


Babykillers and pedophiles should never have children. Or have any say in what happens to them. 

Which is why we all objected to obamacare and death panels.


----------



## Lucy Hamilton

SassyIrishLass said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I will say it slowly.
> The hospital invited Dr Hirano over to see if he could help. Nobody was standing in the way of that. The courts nor the evil left wing communist tory government were not parties to that.
> He was invited as an expert in the field and nothing else.
> I am not clear what debate you are referring to.You seem to be trying to drag a load of baggage into what is a straightforward situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're obviously not aware of Remote Medicine technology. They do SURGERY from 1000s of miles away.  I think they can electronically send all the relative medical records and test results across the Atlantic now.
> 
> What they CAN'T DO is send a $80M specialized biochem lab on a plane with Dr Hirano..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What he could have done is look at the childs records. He could have done that in his own bedroom. You havent given one reason why that could not have happened.
> Is it possible he only came to the UK when he found out how much money the Gards were sitting on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Researchers should have free access to ANY of the medical records. UNLESS Brit Health blocked that move by the parents. WHICH IN ITSELF is fucking sinister thing to do.. There is no reason to visit. The kid needed the specialized services of the Lab in the US.  What part of that don't you understand?
> 
> I just told you, you can't put an $80M specialized lab and the folks that know the protocols on a plane. Since you don't understand the tactical challenges here -- maybe you should STFU....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And with all this access to the data the lab didnt bother to read any of it.Until they found out the parents had money. Maybe you should stfu and stop making politics out of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Britain's failed socialized medicine made it political. You clowns can't get anything right
Click to expand...


The British have the most inept health service on our Continent, when we lived in London we never used it and always used private.

EG. if the British want to see a Consultant, they first must get a letter from their Doctor sent to and then they get placed upon a waiting list which can be waiting any time between two months to a year and a half, this on NHS.

The above same if they go Private, they still must get a letter from their Doctor but then they will have an appointment any time between two days to five days.

Also one time a friend of ours had a small accident and his wife had no choice but to take him to A&E (Accident and the Emergencies) and a chief nurse looked at him and then said okay but he would have to wait for the Doctor to look at him also to prescribe painkillers, they wait SIX hours for the Doctor to get to them.

This is the British NHS not a good situation for them.


----------



## koshergrl

Dr Grump said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is one situation where I would, literally, kill people. If my kid goes into a hospital, and I decide to remove him and they try to stop me, people are going to die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than likely you will be the one dying...
Click to expand...

Not alone I won't.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Lucy Hamilton said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're obviously not aware of Remote Medicine technology. They do SURGERY from 1000s of miles away.  I think they can electronically send all the relative medical records and test results across the Atlantic now.
> 
> What they CAN'T DO is send a $80M specialized biochem lab on a plane with Dr Hirano..
> 
> 
> 
> What he could have done is look at the childs records. He could have done that in his own bedroom. You havent given one reason why that could not have happened.
> Is it possible he only came to the UK when he found out how much money the Gards were sitting on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Researchers should have free access to ANY of the medical records. UNLESS Brit Health blocked that move by the parents. WHICH IN ITSELF is fucking sinister thing to do.. There is no reason to visit. The kid needed the specialized services of the Lab in the US.  What part of that don't you understand?
> 
> I just told you, you can't put an $80M specialized lab and the folks that know the protocols on a plane. Since you don't understand the tactical challenges here -- maybe you should STFU....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And with all this access to the data the lab didnt bother to read any of it.Until they found out the parents had money. Maybe you should stfu and stop making politics out of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Britain's failed socialized medicine made it political. You clowns can't get anything right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The British have the most inept health service on our Continent, when we lived in London we never used it and always used private.
> 
> EG. if the British want to see a Consultant, they first must get a letter from their Doctor sent to and then they get placed upon a waiting list which can be waiting any time between two months to a year and a half, this on NHS.
> 
> The above same if they go Private, they still must get a letter from their Doctor but then they will have an appointment any time between two days to five days.
> 
> Also one time a friend of ours had a small accident and his wife had no choice but to take him to A&E (Accident and the Emergencies) and a chief nurse looked at him and then said okay but he would have to wait for the Doctor to look at him also to prescribe painkillers, they wait SIX hours for the Doctor to get to them.
> 
> This is the British NHS not a good situation for them.
Click to expand...


Well it certainly did Charlie Gard no favors.


----------



## Lucy Hamilton

SassyIrishLass said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I will say it slowly.
> The hospital invited Dr Hirano over to see if he could help. Nobody was standing in the way of that. The courts nor the evil left wing communist tory government were not parties to that.
> He was invited as an expert in the field and nothing else.
> I am not clear what debate you are referring to.You seem to be trying to drag a load of baggage into what is a straightforward situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're obviously not aware of Remote Medicine technology. They do SURGERY from 1000s of miles away.  I think they can electronically send all the relative medical records and test results across the Atlantic now.
> 
> What they CAN'T DO is send a $80M specialized biochem lab on a plane with Dr Hirano..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What he could have done is look at the childs records. He could have done that in his own bedroom. You havent given one reason why that could not have happened.
> Is it possible he only came to the UK when he found out how much money the Gards were sitting on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Researchers should have free access to ANY of the medical records. UNLESS Brit Health blocked that move by the parents. WHICH IN ITSELF is fucking sinister thing to do.. There is no reason to visit. The kid needed the specialized services of the Lab in the US.  What part of that don't you understand?
> 
> I just told you, you can't put an $80M specialized lab and the folks that know the protocols on a plane. Since you don't understand the tactical challenges here -- maybe you should STFU....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And with all this access to the data the lab didnt bother to read any of it.Until they found out the parents had money. Maybe you should stfu and stop making politics out of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Britain's failed socialized medicine made it political. You clowns can't get anything right
Click to expand...


I forgot to mention the British also have a crisis getting a dentist because they too are NHS. This has nothing to do with money because the British Government always gives the NHS many many billions a year, so the problem is with bureaucracy and also shortage of nurses because the British pay their nurses the lowest wages in the whole of our Continent, in England a train driver gets twice the amount of wage that a nurse gets.

Is it a wonder that British nurses train in Britain and then go elsewhere to work when Britain treats them so badly and pays them a wage that they cannot live on, I think they get 15,000 Pounds a year starting wage.

Nurses deserve respect and a living wage, the British treat them like crap and take them for granted.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Lucy Hamilton said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're obviously not aware of Remote Medicine technology. They do SURGERY from 1000s of miles away.  I think they can electronically send all the relative medical records and test results across the Atlantic now.
> 
> What they CAN'T DO is send a $80M specialized biochem lab on a plane with Dr Hirano..
> 
> 
> 
> What he could have done is look at the childs records. He could have done that in his own bedroom. You havent given one reason why that could not have happened.
> Is it possible he only came to the UK when he found out how much money the Gards were sitting on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Researchers should have free access to ANY of the medical records. UNLESS Brit Health blocked that move by the parents. WHICH IN ITSELF is fucking sinister thing to do.. There is no reason to visit. The kid needed the specialized services of the Lab in the US.  What part of that don't you understand?
> 
> I just told you, you can't put an $80M specialized lab and the folks that know the protocols on a plane. Since you don't understand the tactical challenges here -- maybe you should STFU....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And with all this access to the data the lab didnt bother to read any of it.Until they found out the parents had money. Maybe you should stfu and stop making politics out of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Britain's failed socialized medicine made it political. You clowns can't get anything right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I forgot to mention the British also have a crisis getting a dentist because they too are NHS. This has nothing to do with money because the British Government always gives the NHS many many billions a year, so the problem is with bureaucracy and also shortage of nurses because the British pay their nurses the lowest wages in the whole of our Continent, in England a train driver gets twice the amount of wage that a nurse gets.
> 
> Is it a wonder that British nurses train in Britain and then go elsewhere to work when Britain treats them so badly and pays them a wage that they cannot live on, I think they get 15,000 Pounds a year starting wage.
> 
> Nurses deserve respect and a living wage, the British treat them like crap and take them for granted.
Click to expand...


My sister is a medical flight nurse....uuuuge dollars.


----------



## Lucy Hamilton

SassyIrishLass said:


> Lucy Hamilton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> What he could have done is look at the childs records. He could have done that in his own bedroom. You havent given one reason why that could not have happened.
> Is it possible he only came to the UK when he found out how much money the Gards were sitting on ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Researchers should have free access to ANY of the medical records. UNLESS Brit Health blocked that move by the parents. WHICH IN ITSELF is fucking sinister thing to do.. There is no reason to visit. The kid needed the specialized services of the Lab in the US.  What part of that don't you understand?
> 
> I just told you, you can't put an $80M specialized lab and the folks that know the protocols on a plane. Since you don't understand the tactical challenges here -- maybe you should STFU....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And with all this access to the data the lab didnt bother to read any of it.Until they found out the parents had money. Maybe you should stfu and stop making politics out of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Britain's failed socialized medicine made it political. You clowns can't get anything right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The British have the most inept health service on our Continent, when we lived in London we never used it and always used private.
> 
> EG. if the British want to see a Consultant, they first must get a letter from their Doctor sent to and then they get placed upon a waiting list which can be waiting any time between two months to a year and a half, this on NHS.
> 
> The above same if they go Private, they still must get a letter from their Doctor but then they will have an appointment any time between two days to five days.
> 
> Also one time a friend of ours had a small accident and his wife had no choice but to take him to A&E (Accident and the Emergencies) and a chief nurse looked at him and then said okay but he would have to wait for the Doctor to look at him also to prescribe painkillers, they wait SIX hours for the Doctor to get to them.
> 
> This is the British NHS not a good situation for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it certainly did Charlie Gard no favors.
Click to expand...


This below from several years ago everyone on our Continent heard about because Europol had an alert looking for his parents.

This young child had cancer and his parents were told by the British Doctors at the hospital they could not remove him to take him for Proton Beam Therapy in Prag and that he had to continue with Chemotherapy even though he was getting sicker instead of better, his parents disagreed and they knew Proton Beam Therapy has less side effects than Chemotherapy and a children's hospital in Prag they said they could take this young child immediately and begin the treatment, the parents sold their house to even pay for this.

The Doctors would NOT allow them to take their child, so in an extraordinary happening his parents had to KIDNAP their OWN child to get him to Prag. The Hospital and the British Police put out an alert for them for having taken their child without Medical Consent and Europol was activated to search for the parents and the child. The parents were ARRESTED in Spain, but later released and they took their child to Prag for the treatment.

The Doctors said that Proton Beam Therapy was experimental and was too expensive and Chemotherapy was the only option.

This below one of the original news items from 2014:











Time running out for missing boy with brain tumour, say police

Ashya King case - Wikipedia

This now from 2016:





Ashya King's proton beam cancer therapy is as good as chemotherapy | Daily Mail Online





Brain tumour boy Ashya King is free of cancer after proton therapy, parents say


----------



## PredFan

Tommy Tainant said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the final word on Charlie Gard and the evils of Socialized medicine:
> 
> In socialized medicine, your child, your spouse, your elderly parent, does not belong to you, they belong to the government who is paying the bills.
> 
> 
> 
> People arent property and the rights of the child outweigh those of the parents. Its not a difficult concept to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The parents and guardians speak for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. Unless you live in a country with socialized medicine then the government and the courts decide. You belong to them. Your child belongs to them. It's not a difficult truth to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are parents who would deny their children treatment because of their own personal religious beliefs. Who speaks up for the child then ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.
> Stop talking, admit you are wrong, be an adult. It won't hurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im not sure that I can simplify the question any further. Who speaks for the child when the parents are wrong ?
Click to expand...


I see you chose not to be an adult. Have fun with that.


----------



## Coyote

PredFan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the final word on Charlie Gard and the evils of Socialized medicine:
> 
> In socialized medicine, your child, your spouse, your elderly parent, does not belong to you, they belong to the government who is paying the bills.
> 
> 
> 
> People arent property and the rights of the child outweigh those of the parents. Its not a difficult concept to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The parents and guardians speak for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. Unless you live in a country with socialized medicine then the government and the courts decide. You belong to them. Your child belongs to them. It's not a difficult truth to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not always.  Sometimes the courts are needed to speak for the voiceless, because what the parents are doing is child abuse.  A child isn't property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In Socialized Medicine, a child is the property of the state. That is blatantly obvious in this case. There was no child abuse, it was exactly the opposite.
Click to expand...

That is not the case here.  It was a case of medical ethics and the child's interests vs the parents.  It has nothing to do with socialized medicine.


----------



## Coyote

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this child has been used, and it's a bit shameful.  I listened to a British politician (conservative) being interviewed on this.  Out of everyone arguing for the treatment outside the parents -  none had seen the medical evidence on the child's condition.  Not even the doctor offering the supposed treatment (who had a financial interest in it).  He was invited to Britain in January to see the child and all his medical records and he didn't go.  American politicians - in the current political atmosphere of repealing ACA are using it as political weapon against "socialized" medicine - that is exactly why there is so much attention focused on him.  But it's not a fight between "socialized medicine" and a baby's life.  As this conservative MP pointed out - socialized medicine is not perfect, but in this case it's medical ethics vs. the parents.  She also pointed out that the unacknowledged tragedy of this was prolonging the baby's agony and prolonging the parents agony when they needed to come to terms with the reality of their baby's condition.  The baby became a political pawn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed WHY researchers in the US are not ADVOCATES for dragging folks into experimental programs. They cannot assess this remotely. No NEED to go to Britain. They can get access to every test and record without traveling. What they NEEDED was for Charlie to be in THEIR unique and very specialized lab in order to determine the eligibility for treatment. Researchers should NOT beg for experimental patients --- ever. Or get entangled in LEGAL disputes about transferring care from one system to another.
> 
> It WAS a fight between "socialized medicine" and family rights. And families lost. All of the excuses about what the RESEARCHERS did or didn't do are MUTE -- if the Courts are gonna back up the arrogance and insensitivity of the Brit Health system... Again -- researchers are not advocates or salespeople. Don't expect them to get entangled in this.
> 
> Charlie could have HELPED hundreds of other children afflicted with this disease. Now he's just dead....
Click to expand...

It had nothing. To. Do. With socialized medicine. Zip. Zero. 

What unique and specialized lab?  The stuff could be given in a drink. 

This researcher had a financial interest in it. Not only that he was throwing around statistics with out ever having seeing the child OR HIS RECORDS and he even admitted that this experimental treatment had never been used on a child with Charlie's mutation.

When people consent to highly experimental therapy, the do so knowingly. Charlie couldn't. When some one can't and there is dispute between doctors and there ethics and parents and their wishes, the courts step in to represent the child's interest. This is not unique to countries with socialized medicine. Parents don't have an unlimited right to whatever they wish to their child.

The right is making it into a big bad socialist bogeyman and using Charlie.


----------



## Coyote

PredFan said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> People arent property and the rights of the child outweigh those of the parents. Its not a difficult concept to grasp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The parents and guardians speak for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. Unless you live in a country with socialized medicine then the government and the courts decide. You belong to them. Your child belongs to them. It's not a difficult truth to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are parents who would deny their children treatment because of their own personal religious beliefs. Who speaks up for the child then ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.
> Stop talking, admit you are wrong, be an adult. It won't hurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im not sure that I can simplify the question any further. Who speaks for the child when the parents are wrong ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you chose not to be an adult. Have fun with that.
Click to expand...


His last sentence is very adult. What is the answer?


----------



## flacaltenn

Coyote said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the final word on Charlie Gard and the evils of Socialized medicine:
> 
> In socialized medicine, your child, your spouse, your elderly parent, does not belong to you, they belong to the government who is paying the bills.
> 
> 
> 
> People arent property and the rights of the child outweigh those of the parents. Its not a difficult concept to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The parents and guardians speak for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. Unless you live in a country with socialized medicine then the government and the courts decide. You belong to them. Your child belongs to them. It's not a difficult truth to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not always.  Sometimes the courts are needed to speak for the voiceless, because what the parents are doing is child abuse.  A child isn't property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In Socialized Medicine, a child is the property of the state. That is blatantly obvious in this case. There was no child abuse, it was exactly the opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not the case here.  It was a case of medical ethics and the child's interests vs the parents.  It has nothing to do with socialized medicine.
Click to expand...


The parents wanted to give him a chance at gene therapy. How is that NOT in the child's interest? The NHS told him to die.. WITHOUT the ability to TRY a new procedure that NHS doesn't WANT to cover. 

What is this shit about being AGAINST the child's interest? He WAS dying rapidly... Do you understand that situation? WHY would anyone PROHIBIT by LAW of the realm taking him to America for experimental treatment? 

The fact you don't see the REAL FAMILY abuse here -- worries me...  This disease is POTENTIALLY reversible with custom gene therapy. You cannot bring a syringe on an Airplane and fix him 8,000 miles away.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Very often in countries with socialized medicine people are killed for their own good.   Sometimes when they want to live government doctors say they are incompetent to make that decision.  

Now we know that even when the medical care can be paid out of pocket,  when the government says you die - you die.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

In the enlightened countries of Belgium and the Netherlands if a child feels insufficiently happy they are killed.  Almost a thousand every year.   

Killing Children Legally In Belgium


----------



## JoeB131

Mindful said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before I  make a judgement, I should ask myself how would I think feel and behave if I was the mother of baby Charlie Gard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really what is being discussed here....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it should be. In part at least.
Click to expand...


No, it really shouldn't be. The question here was is it ethical to continue to expend resources on a child with absolutely no prognosis for recovery, just to make the parents feel better.


----------



## JoeB131

PredFan said:


> Here is the final word on Charlie Gard and the evils of Socialized medicine:
> 
> In socialized medicine, your child, your spouse, your elderly parent, does not belong to you, they belong to the government who is paying the bills.



again, how is that different than "Corporate" medicine, where they can decide you can die if you represent an economic loss to them?  

The thing was, Nataline Sarkisyan had a chance to recover. Charlie Gard was a corpse being kept alive by artificial means. 



PredFan said:


> Complete bull shit. People donate money all the time for parents of children fighting deadly diseases. Again, you are dead wrong. Time to be an adult and admit you are wrong.



Not really. Only reason why this corpse got money was because the anti-abortion nutters got involved.  

If it happened in this country, you wouldn't give a shit.


----------



## JoeB131

Tipsycatlover said:


> Socialized medicine is veterinary medicine applied to humans. You pay the dog's bills. As the owner single payer, if you don't want to pay for a flea treatment, the loss of blood could kill the dog. No one cares. In socialized medicine the government is the owner we are all the pets.



again, how does that differ from Corporate Medicine?  

Big insurance wants to go back to the good old days where they can declare you cancer a pre-existing condition and not pay for it.  



flacaltenn said:


> Let me say this E-V-E-N s-l-o-w-e-r for YOU.. * Researcher KNOWS he could give the kid a chance. *CAN'T EVALUATE without days of testing in HIS Lab. No REASON for him to come over to plea. He MADE his case to the parents. And it's really THEIR CALL as to whether to accept Dr. Hirano's offer. NOT YOU. NOT the Govt..



So by your logic, Children should be subjected to whatever crazy medical advice they get from whatever quack walks in off the street?  

Courts in this country overrule parental rights all the time. 

What are parents' rights regarding a child's medical treatment? - CNN.com

Like Daniel, Noah Maxin had a blood cancerdoctors said would almost surely kill him if he didn't have chemotherapy. Like the Hausers, the Maxins rejected the doctor's recommendations in favor of supplements and other alternative treatments to boost his immune system. Both cases wound up in courtrooms.

But the similarities end there. A Minnesota court ordered Colleen and Anthony Hauser to have their son undergo chemotherapy and possibly radiation. The Maxins, however, won their case, and for a time gave Noah, who was then 7 years old, only alternative treatments.


----------



## JoeB131

koshergrl said:


> The rights of the child and the parents outweigh the rights of the *state* to deny them treatment.
> 
> What happened to the whole "everybody has a right to healthcare" BS you baby killers are always touting? apparently you pigs think that means "the state has the right to decide who gets treatment, and who doesn't."
> 
> Which is one of the major problems the decent people have had with government health care all along. It always ends up being about who the state is allowed to kill off.



Again, this child was blind deaf and unable to breathe on his own. 

The government overrules parents all the time in this country as well.


----------



## PredFan

Coyote said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the final word on Charlie Gard and the evils of Socialized medicine:
> 
> In socialized medicine, your child, your spouse, your elderly parent, does not belong to you, they belong to the government who is paying the bills.
> 
> 
> 
> People arent property and the rights of the child outweigh those of the parents. Its not a difficult concept to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The parents and guardians speak for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. Unless you live in a country with socialized medicine then the government and the courts decide. You belong to them. Your child belongs to them. It's not a difficult truth to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not always.  Sometimes the courts are needed to speak for the voiceless, because what the parents are doing is child abuse.  A child isn't property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In Socialized Medicine, a child is the property of the state. That is blatantly obvious in this case. There was no child abuse, it was exactly the opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not the case here.  It was a case of medical ethics and the child's interests vs the parents.  It has nothing to do with socialized medicine.
Click to expand...


Yeah it does. This is what we have been saying will happen with Socialized Medicine. And it had nothing at all to do with ethics and everything to do with politics.


----------



## JoeB131

koshergrl said:


> That is one situation where I would, literally, kill people. If my kid goes into a hospital, and I decide to remove him and they try to stop me, people are going to die.



Okay.  You'd probably be arrested, though, if courts found against you.



koshergrl said:


> Bullshit, the court should have no say in it one way or the other.
> 
> you're just totally committed to government ownership of people, aren't you?



courts overrule parents all the time, and they should when it's appropriate.


----------



## Mindful

JoeB131 said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before I  make a judgement, I should ask myself how would I think feel and behave if I was the mother of baby Charlie Gard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really what is being discussed here....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it should be. In part at least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it really shouldn't be. The question here was is it ethical to continue to expend resources on a child with absolutely no prognosis for recovery, just to make the parents feel better.
Click to expand...


JUST to make the parents feel better? 

It's easy to sit here and make judgement, forgetting the human element. But I know if I were that baby's mother, I would probably feel differently. I'd cling on to the slightest hope. Particularly in the light of Charlie having been born as a normal baby. Capable of responding and bonding. What came later was so cruel. If he had been born totally disabled from the start, these issues would have been easier to deal with.


----------



## JoeB131

Mindful said:


> JUST to make the parents feel better?
> 
> It's easy to sit here and make judgement, forgetting the human element. But I know if I were that baby's mother, I would probably feel differently. I'd cling on to the slightest hope. Particularly in the light of Charlie having been born as a normal baby. Capable of responding and bonding. What came later was so cruel. If he had been born totally disabled from the start, these issues would have been easier to deal with.



Yes, this is a very sad story. 

And yes, they would cling on to the slightest hope.  And that's kind of why you need someone who is objective to say, "enough". Based on the science, there is nothing more we can do.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Coyote said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the final word on Charlie Gard and the evils of Socialized medicine:
> 
> In socialized medicine, your child, your spouse, your elderly parent, does not belong to you, they belong to the government who is paying the bills.
> 
> 
> 
> People arent property and the rights of the child outweigh those of the parents. Its not a difficult concept to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The parents and guardians speak for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. Unless you live in a country with socialized medicine then the government and the courts decide. You belong to them. Your child belongs to them. It's not a difficult truth to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not always.  Sometimes the courts are needed to speak for the voiceless, because what the parents are doing is child abuse.  A child isn't property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In Socialized Medicine, a child is the property of the state. That is blatantly obvious in this case. There was no child abuse, it was exactly the opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not the case here.  It was a case of medical ethics and the child's interests vs the parents.  It has nothing to do with socialized medicine.
Click to expand...


Oh it does too, just stop already.

There was no reason those parents were prohibited from using their own funds to pursue help for that child. NONE!!!


----------



## PredFan

SassyIrishLass said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> People arent property and the rights of the child outweigh those of the parents. Its not a difficult concept to grasp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The parents and guardians speak for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. Unless you live in a country with socialized medicine then the government and the courts decide. You belong to them. Your child belongs to them. It's not a difficult truth to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not always.  Sometimes the courts are needed to speak for the voiceless, because what the parents are doing is child abuse.  A child isn't property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In Socialized Medicine, a child is the property of the state. That is blatantly obvious in this case. There was no child abuse, it was exactly the opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not the case here.  It was a case of medical ethics and the child's interests vs the parents.  It has nothing to do with socialized medicine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it does too, just stop already.
> 
> There was no reason those parents were prohibited from using their own funds to pursue help for that child. NONE!!!
Click to expand...


No reason except for a political one. They can not tolerate our system possibly being able to help a child that theirs couldn't.


----------



## badger2

It certainly looks as if the verdict on the paternal function has the jury still out. The state-agent psychopath Pope moves his lips, relegating Charlie Gard to (another father [italics]), when most educated people know that religion's protection-racket mafias traditionally rely upon replacing knowledge by faith.

We noticed something else. We noticed Mike Pence coming into the msm limelight approximately the 12th of July, 2017. We would like to align the chrons to compare to the appearance of the Charlie Gard story in msm.


----------



## flacaltenn

JoeB131 said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialized medicine is veterinary medicine applied to humans. You pay the dog's bills. As the owner single payer, if you don't want to pay for a flea treatment, the loss of blood could kill the dog. No one cares. In socialized medicine the government is the owner we are all the pets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, how does that differ from Corporate Medicine?
> 
> Big insurance wants to go back to the good old days where they can declare you cancer a pre-existing condition and not pay for it.
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me say this E-V-E-N s-l-o-w-e-r for YOU.. * Researcher KNOWS he could give the kid a chance. *CAN'T EVALUATE without days of testing in HIS Lab. No REASON for him to come over to plea. He MADE his case to the parents. And it's really THEIR CALL as to whether to accept Dr. Hirano's offer. NOT YOU. NOT the Govt..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So by your logic, Children should be subjected to whatever crazy medical advice they get from whatever quack walks in off the street?
> 
> Courts in this country overrule parental rights all the time.
> 
> What are parents' rights regarding a child's medical treatment? - CNN.com
> 
> Like Daniel, Noah Maxin had a blood cancerdoctors said would almost surely kill him if he didn't have chemotherapy. Like the Hausers, the Maxins rejected the doctor's recommendations in favor of supplements and other alternative treatments to boost his immune system. Both cases wound up in courtrooms.
> 
> But the similarities end there. A Minnesota court ordered Colleen and Anthony Hauser to have their son undergo chemotherapy and possibly radiation. The Maxins, however, won their case, and for a time gave Noah, who was then 7 years old, only alternative treatments.
Click to expand...


That's another discussion. There is NOTHING crazy or dangerous about giving a dying kid a chance at REMISSION.  

Your example just BOLSTERS the argument against you..  Thanks for cutting yourself off at the knees.. 
A LOT of rationale adults make the SAME decision on cancer. Particularly, when their cancer is not particularly receptive to the poisons and radiation. Especially when the protocols approach NEAR LETHAL dosage. 

There is DEFINITE pain and suffering involved. And the chances in some cases are MUCH LESS than the outlook for the custom gene therapy that Baby Charlie would have had. In the case of children, putting an innocent child thru that end of life experience is COMPLETELY unacceptable. Better to die with teddy bears and dreams. 

So you can't equate the 2 cases. And in EACH case the parental ADVOCATES were doing their jobs.


----------



## flacaltenn

JoeB131 said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> JUST to make the parents feel better?
> 
> It's easy to sit here and make judgement, forgetting the human element. But I know if I were that baby's mother, I would probably feel differently. I'd cling on to the slightest hope. Particularly in the light of Charlie having been born as a normal baby. Capable of responding and bonding. What came later was so cruel. If he had been born totally disabled from the start, these issues would have been easier to deal with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is a very sad story.
> 
> And yes, they would cling on to the slightest hope.  And that's kind of why you need someone who is objective to say, "enough". Based on the science, there is nothing more we can do.
Click to expand...


Not true. Advances in customing gene repair is becoming reality. And the program that would have taken Charlie has had some success.


----------



## flacaltenn

PredFan said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The parents and guardians speak for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. Unless you live in a country with socialized medicine then the government and the courts decide. You belong to them. Your child belongs to them. It's not a difficult truth to grasp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not always.  Sometimes the courts are needed to speak for the voiceless, because what the parents are doing is child abuse.  A child isn't property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In Socialized Medicine, a child is the property of the state. That is blatantly obvious in this case. There was no child abuse, it was exactly the opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not the case here.  It was a case of medical ethics and the child's interests vs the parents.  It has nothing to do with socialized medicine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it does too, just stop already.
> 
> There was no reason those parents were prohibited from using their own funds to pursue help for that child. NONE!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No reason except for a political one. They can not tolerate our system possibly being able to help a child that theirs couldn't.
Click to expand...


And by refusing to participate by placing NHS patients in these cutting edge trials, Britain is taking a very ANTI science and research stance. One that is based on their desire NOT TO INFLATE the costs of their Socialized Health Care delivery scheme..


----------



## Mindful

I still don't understand why the parents were overridden by the judge.

It couldn't have been about the money, because sufficient funds had been raised to pay for  the US trip, and subsequent treatment.


----------



## badger2

The politics of Charlie Gard's case is also the politics of consanguinity. Note that the Vatican hospital is mentioned, though another 'facility' is not named:

10 Jul 2017  British Court Considers Possible Treatment in Charlie Gard Case
www.snopes.com/2017/07/10/charlie-gard-treatment/
'....from researchers at the Vatican's children's hospital and another facility outside of Britain.'


----------



## Coyote

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> People arent property and the rights of the child outweigh those of the parents. Its not a difficult concept to grasp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The parents and guardians speak for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. Unless you live in a country with socialized medicine then the government and the courts decide. You belong to them. Your child belongs to them. It's not a difficult truth to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not always.  Sometimes the courts are needed to speak for the voiceless, because what the parents are doing is child abuse.  A child isn't property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In Socialized Medicine, a child is the property of the state. That is blatantly obvious in this case. There was no child abuse, it was exactly the opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not the case here.  It was a case of medical ethics and the child's interests vs the parents.  It has nothing to do with socialized medicine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The parents wanted to give him a chance at gene therapy. How is that NOT in the child's interest? The NHS told him to die.. WITHOUT the ability to TRY a new procedure that NHS doesn't WANT to cover.
> 
> What is this shit about being AGAINST the child's interest? He WAS dying rapidly... Do you understand that situation? WHY would anyone PROHIBIT by LAW of the realm taking him to America for experimental treatment?
> 
> The fact you don't see the REAL FAMILY abuse here -- worries me...  This disease is POTENTIALLY reversible with custom gene therapy. You cannot bring a syringe on an Airplane and fix him 8,000 miles away.
Click to expand...


In socialized medicine, the child is NOT the property of the state.  That is what I'm trying to tell you.  The argument is deliberately being framed in political terms when it is NOT a political problem for the purpose of attacking socialized medicine.  Socialized medicine has it's pitfalls but every country (that I'm aware of) allows people to go OUTSIDE the system for PRIVATE treatment if they can afford it.

What makes this case different is medical ethics laws and the rights of the child.  Every civilized country - regardless of whether or not they have socialized medicine or something else - has laws to protect the rights of the child from potential medical abuse in a conflict between parents and whomever advocates for the child (doctors, social workers, courts).

Here are some similar cases without socialized medicine:
http://ascopubs.org/doi/full/10.1200/jco.2006.06.4709
Judge rules family can't refuse chemo for boy
The sad saga of an Amish girl with a curable cancer whose parents are refusing chemotherapy in favor of “natural healing”
She Had a 'Grapefruit-Sized Tumor' on Her Shoulder. Her Mom Chose Prayer Over the E.R.

In all those cases there are similarities and differences to Charlie Gard.

One of the things that the doctors were concerned about was whether the infant was suffering.- no one could say for sure because he was incapable of showing how he felt.   It's easy to assume that neural diseases like motor neuron diseases or degeneration isn't painful, but people with MS for example can and do experience a great deal of pain.   No one knows what he is suffering because all they see is the imobile exterior.  So ARE they prolonging a child's suffering for a treatment that is - CURRENTLY - the equivalent of pumping them full of Vit-C?  We laught at that, but take this one seriously because it involves test tubes and labs but like Vit C - has undergone NO clinical trials and has never been tried on this defect based on the statements of a doctor who had not looked at a single record when he gave his statistics.

You can choose either way - I certainly sympathize with the parents, hell who wouldn't?  It's a nightmare and any normal parent would grasp at anything that could offer a glimmer of hope - even quackery.  But I also understand the doctors point of view - they are bound by certain ethics to NOT cause suffering.  They aren't villains either.  And I understand the courts - SOMEONE should be speaking for the child's interest since he can not and the parents might not be able to see that.  They aren't villains either.  It's a heartrending case no matter what and each thinks they are doing the best for the child.

And it IS a VERY VERY political argument.  I'm not trying to sound cruel but you have a picture circulated of a beautiful white European infant boy looking like he's just asleep.  Attached to it you have labels like "State passes death sentance on baby Charlie".  You have a concerted AMERICAN rightwing attack on socialized medicine and "death panels" at the same time as the latest attempt to repeal ACA falls flat.  You couldn't ask for a better political poster child - who's going to really check the facts in the face of that lovely tragic child?  Not many...because if they do...they're going to be labeled "baby killers".  In fact they are.

It's very political because around the world we have children in desperate need of life saving or life altering treatment they can't get at home - either they're too poor, their countries are too war torn or in political upheavel or there simply is no decent healthcare.  They never make it to the news.  How many infants have been badly damaged in the Syrian conflict or the Iraq war?  Is anyone making waves?  Demanding those children be brought to the US...or making them American citizens?  Charlie lived in a nation with excellent health care - not perfect, but no system is including our own.  He was attended to by doctors who are pretty top notch in their field - we're not talking physician assistents.  HIS heavily criticized healthcare system has paid for everything including the very expensive process of keeping him alive.  Had he been in the US, unable to afford insurance but not poor enough for medicaid - his parents couldn't have afforded that care and would likely have bankrupted themselves and accumulated high medical bills in an effort to keep their child alive.  And - in this country, because our laws are a little different - they MIGHT have been able to get the treatment they were trying for.  But it wouldn't have involved taking a medically fragile dying child on a transatlantic flight, causing an unknown mount of suffering.

I don't blame the parents.
I don't blame the doctors.
I don't blame the courts.
They all tried to make the best of a very difficult decision.


----------



## Coyote

Here is another article, from a doctor's point of view which also lays out a lot of information missing from the media hype surrounding this: As a paediatrician, let me tell you the sad truth about whether Charlie Gard really could have ever survived'

At first glance, it could be interpreted that the inaction of GOSH resulted in Charlie’s one chance at a normal life being cruelly snatched away from him. This is clearly the view of many individuals, given the abuse and intimidation that has been directed at GOSH staff over the last few weeks. *Bear in mind however that in January, the only medical professionals in a position to fully assess Charlie and have enough information to make informed judgments on his prognosis were those at GOSH.* GOSH also *asked other external, experienced paediatricians to assess him independently, including a metabolic specialist from Southampton* whom Charlie’s parents had wanted to assess him. *All of these professionals agreed with the GOSH view that his underlying condition had progressed to a point where any intervention would be futile, only serving to prolong the process of dying rather than improving his quality of life.*

The world of rare mitochondrial disease research is small and the experts in the world-renowned centres know each other and communicate with each other regularly. *It has been reported that GOSH approached Professor Hirano in January 2017 to explore experimental nucleoside therapy (NBT) and invited him to come to London to assess Charlie at that time. GOSH were preparing an ethics committee application to seek permission to use NBT for Charlie when he deteriorated in January.*

What was the basis of such a huge divergence of opinion on Charlie’s baseline condition between GOSH and Charlie’s family and the overseas teams? Charlie’s parents have stated that they believe that there was no evidence of “irreversible brain damage” in January. Indeed, he had an MRI scan of his brain that has been described as structurally normal. A normal scan does not mean that a brain is working normally. Charlie was having severe fits that indicated that the function of his brain was compromised and, with knowledge of the natural history of his condition, GOSH recognised that he had reached a point where even with experimental treatment, the likelihood of any significant improvement in his condition was negligible.

Charlie’s parents disagreed and were supported in this by Professor Hirano who provided written statements in support of his parent’s position to be used as evidence in the various court hearings. After the courts’ rulings in favour of GOSH, Hirano then stated that he had new evidence that had not been considered previously which led to the recent return to court. *During this process, it transpired that Hirano had never physically assessed Charlie nor had he had sight of his medical records and investigations, including the second opinions of doctors from outside GOSH*. It was also revealed that potentially he stood to gain financially from the use of NBT. His evidence flagged up potential hope for the future treatment of mitochondrial diseases but there was nothing to suggest that it could help Charlie following reassessment of his condition.

.....


----------



## Coyote

SassyIrishLass said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> People arent property and the rights of the child outweigh those of the parents. Its not a difficult concept to grasp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The parents and guardians speak for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. Unless you live in a country with socialized medicine then the government and the courts decide. You belong to them. Your child belongs to them. It's not a difficult truth to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not always.  Sometimes the courts are needed to speak for the voiceless, because what the parents are doing is child abuse.  A child isn't property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In Socialized Medicine, a child is the property of the state. That is blatantly obvious in this case. There was no child abuse, it was exactly the opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not the case here.  It was a case of medical ethics and the child's interests vs the parents.  It has nothing to do with socialized medicine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it does too, just stop already.
> 
> There was no reason those parents were prohibited from using their own funds to pursue help for that child. NONE!!!
Click to expand...


Except the child isn't property....there are limits in what a parent can do to or with a child.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Coyote said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The parents and guardians speak for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. Unless you live in a country with socialized medicine then the government and the courts decide. You belong to them. Your child belongs to them. It's not a difficult truth to grasp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not always.  Sometimes the courts are needed to speak for the voiceless, because what the parents are doing is child abuse.  A child isn't property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In Socialized Medicine, a child is the property of the state. That is blatantly obvious in this case. There was no child abuse, it was exactly the opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not the case here.  It was a case of medical ethics and the child's interests vs the parents.  It has nothing to do with socialized medicine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it does too, just stop already.
> 
> There was no reason those parents were prohibited from using their own funds to pursue help for that child. NONE!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except the child isn't property....there are limits in what a parent can do to or with a child.
Click to expand...


Like taking their child for experimental treatment that they had funds 
to pay for?

Those types of limits?

It's bullshit

Explain how that us just and right in anyway


----------



## badger2

Post #330 is problematic. Like other msm reports we have posted, it names neither the second-opinion doctors nor the facility. It reifies Hirano yet hides the identities of other pertinent entities.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

This could get interesting, a mystery illness and perhaps another hospital willing to take the child.

Another Charlie Gard Case?

Prayers little guy...


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Coyote said:


> Here is another article, from a doctor's point of view which also lays out a lot of information missing from the media hype surrounding this: As a paediatrician, let me tell you the sad truth about whether Charlie Gard really could have ever survived'
> 
> At first glance, it could be interpreted that the inaction of GOSH resulted in Charlie’s one chance at a normal life being cruelly snatched away from him. This is clearly the view of many individuals, given the abuse and intimidation that has been directed at GOSH staff over the last few weeks. *Bear in mind however that in January, the only medical professionals in a position to fully assess Charlie and have enough information to make informed judgments on his prognosis were those at GOSH.* GOSH also *asked other external, experienced paediatricians to assess him independently, including a metabolic specialist from Southampton* whom Charlie’s parents had wanted to assess him. *All of these professionals agreed with the GOSH view that his underlying condition had progressed to a point where any intervention would be futile, only serving to prolong the process of dying rather than improving his quality of life.*
> 
> The world of rare mitochondrial disease research is small and the experts in the world-renowned centres know each other and communicate with each other regularly. *It has been reported that GOSH approached Professor Hirano in January 2017 to explore experimental nucleoside therapy (NBT) and invited him to come to London to assess Charlie at that time. GOSH were preparing an ethics committee application to seek permission to use NBT for Charlie when he deteriorated in January.*
> 
> What was the basis of such a huge divergence of opinion on Charlie’s baseline condition between GOSH and Charlie’s family and the overseas teams? Charlie’s parents have stated that they believe that there was no evidence of “irreversible brain damage” in January. Indeed, he had an MRI scan of his brain that has been described as structurally normal. A normal scan does not mean that a brain is working normally. Charlie was having severe fits that indicated that the function of his brain was compromised and, with knowledge of the natural history of his condition, GOSH recognised that he had reached a point where even with experimental treatment, the likelihood of any significant improvement in his condition was negligible.
> 
> Charlie’s parents disagreed and were supported in this by Professor Hirano who provided written statements in support of his parent’s position to be used as evidence in the various court hearings. After the courts’ rulings in favour of GOSH, Hirano then stated that he had new evidence that had not been considered previously which led to the recent return to court. *During this process, it transpired that Hirano had never physically assessed Charlie nor had he had sight of his medical records and investigations, including the second opinions of doctors from outside GOSH*. It was also revealed that potentially he stood to gain financially from the use of NBT. His evidence flagged up potential hope for the future treatment of mitochondrial diseases but there was nothing to suggest that it could help Charlie following reassessment of his condition.
> 
> .....


Yeh but socialised medicine.......................


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Stop trying to explain that the best interests of the patient is to die.   That's ridiculous.  Many killers have used that excuse.  It doesn't work.

Socialized medicine is all about how many people die.  That's success.  It's part of utopian philosophy.   Medical innovation and extending life is prohibited and that is why Charlie Gard died.


----------



## Coyote

Tipsycatlover said:


> Stop trying to explain that the best interests of the patient is to die.   That's ridiculous.  Many killers have used that excuse.  It doesn't work.
> 
> Socialized medicine is all about how many people die.  That's success.  It's part of utopian philosophy.   Medical innovation and extending life is prohibited and that is why Charlie Gard died.




NPR did an interesting series some time back on medical systems in other countries as well as ours - how they worked, what their citizens felt about them etc - even "socialized" medicine takes many different forms.  What was interesting was the expectations for things like end of life care and choices.  What summed it up was a quote from a European:  Europeans feel death is inevitable.  Americans feel death is negotiable.

Socialized medicine is not about "how many people die" but about how many people have access to care.  And, as I pointed out those who can AFFORD to, can go outside the system for care.  Unlike here for example...where those that CAN'T AFFORD it...don't get care.


----------



## Coyote

SassyIrishLass said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not always.  Sometimes the courts are needed to speak for the voiceless, because what the parents are doing is child abuse.  A child isn't property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Socialized Medicine, a child is the property of the state. That is blatantly obvious in this case. There was no child abuse, it was exactly the opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not the case here.  It was a case of medical ethics and the child's interests vs the parents.  It has nothing to do with socialized medicine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it does too, just stop already.
> 
> There was no reason those parents were prohibited from using their own funds to pursue help for that child. NONE!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except the child isn't property....there are limits in what a parent can do to or with a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like taking their child for experimental treatment that they had funds
> to pay for?
> 
> Those types of limits?
> 
> It's bullshit
> 
> Explain how that us just and right in anyway
Click to expand...



I'm not going to label anything "just or right" on either side.

The experimental treatment was offered without the doctor ever examining the child or the child's full record.

So...my question is how far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?

That's question on the table here...


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Coyote said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Socialized Medicine, a child is the property of the state. That is blatantly obvious in this case. There was no child abuse, it was exactly the opposite.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the case here.  It was a case of medical ethics and the child's interests vs the parents.  It has nothing to do with socialized medicine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it does too, just stop already.
> 
> There was no reason those parents were prohibited from using their own funds to pursue help for that child. NONE!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except the child isn't property....there are limits in what a parent can do to or with a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like taking their child for experimental treatment that they had funds
> to pay for?
> 
> Those types of limits?
> 
> It's bullshit
> 
> Explain how that us just and right in anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to label anything "just or right" on either side.
> 
> The experimental treatment was offered without the doctor ever examining the child or the child's full record.
> 
> So...my question is how far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?
> 
> That's question on the table here...
Click to expand...


I'll let someone else say it for me...h/t Tim

_Why isn’t this being shouted from every pulpit, every Town Hall, every poster, every newspaper, every commercial interruption in America?

Why aren’t those who profess to love Freedom and Liberty NOT hanging this shit around the necks of every nihilistic, totalitarian, Demonrat, Nazi, Fascist, Socialist, Obola-Care-Supporter in America?

Where are the pretentious “Freedom of Choice” advocates?

Life – or Death – it doesn’t get any simpler than that._


----------



## Coyote

SassyIrishLass said:


> This could get interesting, a mystery illness and perhaps another hospital willing to take the child.
> 
> Another Charlie Gard Case?
> 
> Prayers little guy...



And how about this child....who needs treatment for cancer he can't get in his home country?

Ban sparks panic among refugees awaiting urgent medical care in U.S.


----------



## Coyote

SassyIrishLass said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the case here.  It was a case of medical ethics and the child's interests vs the parents.  It has nothing to do with socialized medicine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh it does too, just stop already.
> 
> There was no reason those parents were prohibited from using their own funds to pursue help for that child. NONE!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except the child isn't property....there are limits in what a parent can do to or with a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like taking their child for experimental treatment that they had funds
> to pay for?
> 
> Those types of limits?
> 
> It's bullshit
> 
> Explain how that us just and right in anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to label anything "just or right" on either side.
> 
> The experimental treatment was offered without the doctor ever examining the child or the child's full record.
> 
> So...my question is how far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?
> 
> That's question on the table here...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll let someone else say it for me...h/t Tim
> 
> _Why isn’t this being shouted from every pulpit, every Town Hall, every poster, every newspaper, every commercial interruption in America?
> 
> Why aren’t those who profess to love Freedom and Liberty NOT hanging this shit around the necks of every nihilistic, totalitarian, Demonrat, Nazi, Fascist, Socialist, Obola-Care-Supporter in America?
> 
> Where are the pretentious “Freedom of Choice” advocates?
> 
> Life – or Death – it doesn’t get any simpler than that._
Click to expand...



I'll ask again -  how far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?

I don't think there is an easy answer here.  A conscious adult can make decisions or provide direction in the form of a living will.  A child can't.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Coyote said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> This could get interesting, a mystery illness and perhaps another hospital willing to take the child.
> 
> Another Charlie Gard Case?
> 
> Prayers little guy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how about this child....who needs treatment for cancer he can't get in his home country?
> 
> Ban sparks panic among refugees awaiting urgent medical care in U.S.
Click to expand...


I feel for the kid but not being able to come here for treatment due to a travel ban isn't the same as this kid's circumstances. 

I don't see your correlation....who's pulling the plug on the Iraqi child?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Coyote said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh it does too, just stop already.
> 
> There was no reason those parents were prohibited from using their own funds to pursue help for that child. NONE!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except the child isn't property....there are limits in what a parent can do to or with a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like taking their child for experimental treatment that they had funds
> to pay for?
> 
> Those types of limits?
> 
> It's bullshit
> 
> Explain how that us just and right in anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to label anything "just or right" on either side.
> 
> The experimental treatment was offered without the doctor ever examining the child or the child's full record.
> 
> So...my question is how far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?
> 
> That's question on the table here...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll let someone else say it for me...h/t Tim
> 
> _Why isn’t this being shouted from every pulpit, every Town Hall, every poster, every newspaper, every commercial interruption in America?
> 
> Why aren’t those who profess to love Freedom and Liberty NOT hanging this shit around the necks of every nihilistic, totalitarian, Demonrat, Nazi, Fascist, Socialist, Obola-Care-Supporter in America?
> 
> Where are the pretentious “Freedom of Choice” advocates?
> 
> Life – or Death – it doesn’t get any simpler than that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask again -  how far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?
> 
> I don't think there is an easy answer here.  A conscious adult can make decisions or provide direction in the form of a living will.  A child can't.
Click to expand...


I'll ask again, how can a parent be prevented form pursing any treatment that may help a child?


----------



## Coyote

SassyIrishLass said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> This could get interesting, a mystery illness and perhaps another hospital willing to take the child.
> 
> Another Charlie Gard Case?
> 
> Prayers little guy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how about this child....who needs treatment for cancer he can't get in his home country?
> 
> Ban sparks panic among refugees awaiting urgent medical care in U.S.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I feel for the kid but not being able to come here for treatment due to a travel ban isn't the same as this kid's circumstances.
> 
> I don't see your correlation....who's pulling the plug on the Iraqi child?
Click to expand...


The child is going to die without treatment that is unavailable to him in his country.  What's the difference?


----------



## badger2

"Americans feel that death is negotiable." Yes, and Charlie Gard, like all other humans, did not experience his own death, though most everyone that knew about it via msm experienced a helplessness that at least Hirano was addressing.

We cannot agree with the reasoning of the paediatrician, Dr. Jayaram. It is based on such presuppositions as "but there was nothing to suggest that it could help Charlie following reassessment of his condition." This is an arrogant reasoning that relies on the apparent heresay of GOSH, as holders of the secret code that is to be respected against all odds, because (GOSH was actually there, in context [italics])!

Where is Hirano's other evidence that was presented to the court so that the rest of the world can see it? What good does it do to hide it now?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Coyote said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> This could get interesting, a mystery illness and perhaps another hospital willing to take the child.
> 
> Another Charlie Gard Case?
> 
> Prayers little guy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how about this child....who needs treatment for cancer he can't get in his home country?
> 
> Ban sparks panic among refugees awaiting urgent medical care in U.S.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I feel for the kid but not being able to come here for treatment due to a travel ban isn't the same as this kid's circumstances.
> 
> I don't see your correlation....who's pulling the plug on the Iraqi child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The child is going to die without treatment that is unavailable to him in his country.  What's the difference?
Click to expand...



Like everything, two entirely different scenarios. Stop moving the goal posts


----------



## Coyote

SassyIrishLass said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except the child isn't property....there are limits in what a parent can do to or with a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like taking their child for experimental treatment that they had funds
> to pay for?
> 
> Those types of limits?
> 
> It's bullshit
> 
> Explain how that us just and right in anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to label anything "just or right" on either side.
> 
> The experimental treatment was offered without the doctor ever examining the child or the child's full record.
> 
> So...my question is how far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?
> 
> That's question on the table here...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll let someone else say it for me...h/t Tim
> 
> _Why isn’t this being shouted from every pulpit, every Town Hall, every poster, every newspaper, every commercial interruption in America?
> 
> Why aren’t those who profess to love Freedom and Liberty NOT hanging this shit around the necks of every nihilistic, totalitarian, Demonrat, Nazi, Fascist, Socialist, Obola-Care-Supporter in America?
> 
> Where are the pretentious “Freedom of Choice” advocates?
> 
> Life – or Death – it doesn’t get any simpler than that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask again -  how far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?
> 
> I don't think there is an easy answer here.  A conscious adult can make decisions or provide direction in the form of a living will.  A child can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll ask again, how can a parent be prevented form pursing any treatment that may help a child?
Click to expand...


There isn't a clear line but a parent shouldn't subject the child to abusive or neglectful procedures in pursuit of treatment - examples of where I feel the parents were wrong were in the articles I posted earlier.

Will you now answer my question?


----------



## Coyote

badger2 said:


> "Americans feel that death is negotiable." Yes, and Charlie Gard, like all other humans, did not experience his own death, though most everyone that knew about it via msm experienced a helplessness that at least Hirano was addressing.
> 
> We cannot agree with the reasoning of the paediatrician, Dr. Jayaram. It is based on such presuppositions as "but there was nothing to suggest that it could help Charlie following reassessment of his condition." This is an arrogant reasoning that relies on the apparent heresay of GOSH, as holders of the secret code that is to be respected against all odds, because (GOSH was actually there, in context [italics])!
> 
> Where is Hirano's other evidence that was presented to the court so that the rest of the world can see it? What good does it do to hide it now?



Nothing is hidden.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Coyote said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like taking their child for experimental treatment that they had funds
> to pay for?
> 
> Those types of limits?
> 
> It's bullshit
> 
> Explain how that us just and right in anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to label anything "just or right" on either side.
> 
> The experimental treatment was offered without the doctor ever examining the child or the child's full record.
> 
> So...my question is how far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?
> 
> That's question on the table here...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll let someone else say it for me...h/t Tim
> 
> _Why isn’t this being shouted from every pulpit, every Town Hall, every poster, every newspaper, every commercial interruption in America?
> 
> Why aren’t those who profess to love Freedom and Liberty NOT hanging this shit around the necks of every nihilistic, totalitarian, Demonrat, Nazi, Fascist, Socialist, Obola-Care-Supporter in America?
> 
> Where are the pretentious “Freedom of Choice” advocates?
> 
> Life – or Death – it doesn’t get any simpler than that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask again -  how far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?
> 
> I don't think there is an easy answer here.  A conscious adult can make decisions or provide direction in the form of a living will.  A child can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll ask again, how can a parent be prevented form pursing any treatment that may help a child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There isn't a clear line but a parent shouldn't subject the child to abusive or neglectful procedures in pursuit of treatment - examples of where I feel the parents were wrong were in the articles I posted earlier.
> 
> Will you now answer my question?
Click to expand...


I'm a parent, I side with the parents. The UK drug this shit out until it was too late to do anything and from reading different articles it's SOP there.


----------



## Coyote

SassyIrishLass said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> This could get interesting, a mystery illness and perhaps another hospital willing to take the child.
> 
> Another Charlie Gard Case?
> 
> Prayers little guy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how about this child....who needs treatment for cancer he can't get in his home country?
> 
> Ban sparks panic among refugees awaiting urgent medical care in U.S.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I feel for the kid but not being able to come here for treatment due to a travel ban isn't the same as this kid's circumstances.
> 
> I don't see your correlation....who's pulling the plug on the Iraqi child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The child is going to die without treatment that is unavailable to him in his country.  What's the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like everything, two entirely different scenarios. Stop moving the goal posts
Click to expand...


Not really.  The only difference is that the child with cancer has statistically better odds of improvement then Charlie.  So why aren't we clamoring to allow him in for treatment?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Coyote said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> This could get interesting, a mystery illness and perhaps another hospital willing to take the child.
> 
> Another Charlie Gard Case?
> 
> Prayers little guy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how about this child....who needs treatment for cancer he can't get in his home country?
> 
> Ban sparks panic among refugees awaiting urgent medical care in U.S.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I feel for the kid but not being able to come here for treatment due to a travel ban isn't the same as this kid's circumstances.
> 
> I don't see your correlation....who's pulling the plug on the Iraqi child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The child is going to die without treatment that is unavailable to him in his country.  What's the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like everything, two entirely different scenarios. Stop moving the goal posts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really.  The only difference is that the child with cancer has statistically better odds of improvement then Charlie.  So why aren't we clamoring to allow him in for treatment?
Click to expand...


Because Muslims fucked around and got a travel ban slapped on them, 

Yes this is two different situations.


----------



## Coyote

SassyIrishLass said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to label anything "just or right" on either side.
> 
> The experimental treatment was offered without the doctor ever examining the child or the child's full record.
> 
> So...my question is how far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?
> 
> That's question on the table here...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll let someone else say it for me...h/t Tim
> 
> _Why isn’t this being shouted from every pulpit, every Town Hall, every poster, every newspaper, every commercial interruption in America?
> 
> Why aren’t those who profess to love Freedom and Liberty NOT hanging this shit around the necks of every nihilistic, totalitarian, Demonrat, Nazi, Fascist, Socialist, Obola-Care-Supporter in America?
> 
> Where are the pretentious “Freedom of Choice” advocates?
> 
> Life – or Death – it doesn’t get any simpler than that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask again -  how far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?
> 
> I don't think there is an easy answer here.  A conscious adult can make decisions or provide direction in the form of a living will.  A child can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll ask again, how can a parent be prevented form pursing any treatment that may help a child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There isn't a clear line but a parent shouldn't subject the child to abusive or neglectful procedures in pursuit of treatment - examples of where I feel the parents were wrong were in the articles I posted earlier.
> 
> Will you now answer my question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a parent, I side with the parents. The UK drug this shit out until it was too late to do anything and from reading different articles it's SOP there.
Click to expand...


This is what I quoted in an earlier post:

_At first glance, it could be interpreted that the inaction of GOSH resulted in Charlie’s one chance at a normal life being cruelly snatched away from him. This is clearly the view of many individuals, given the abuse and intimidation that has been directed at GOSH staff over the last few weeks. *Bear in mind however that in January, the only medical professionals in a position to fully assess Charlie and have enough information to make informed judgments on his prognosis were those at GOSH.* GOSH also *asked other external, experienced paediatricians to assess him independently, including a metabolic specialist from Southampton* whom Charlie’s parents had wanted to assess him. *All of these professionals agreed with the GOSH view that his underlying condition had progressed to a point where any intervention would be futile, only serving to prolong the process of dying rather than improving his quality of life.*

The world of rare mitochondrial disease research is small and the experts in the world-renowned centres know each other and communicate with each other regularly. *It has been reported that GOSH approached Professor Hirano in January 2017 to explore experimental nucleoside therapy (NBT) and invited him to come to London to assess Charlie at that time. GOSH were preparing an ethics committee application to seek permission to use NBT for Charlie when he deteriorated in January.*

What was the basis of such a huge divergence of opinion on Charlie’s baseline condition between GOSH and Charlie’s family and the overseas teams? Charlie’s parents have stated that they believe that there was no evidence of “irreversible brain damage” in January. Indeed, he had an MRI scan of his brain that has been described as structurally normal. A normal scan does not mean that a brain is working normally. Charlie was having severe fits that indicated that the function of his brain was compromised and, with knowledge of the natural history of his condition, GOSH recognised that he had reached a point where even with experimental treatment, the likelihood of any significant improvement in his condition was negligible._​

It sounds like the doctors did everything they could - EARLY.  That in JANUARY they approached Hirano about this therapy, INVITED him to assess Charlie and were seeking to get permission to allow it for Charlie when he got drastically worse.

They prepared an ethics committee application (similar to procedures WE have in place regarding highly experimental treatments for compassionate use).


----------



## Coyote

SassyIrishLass said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how about this child....who needs treatment for cancer he can't get in his home country?
> 
> Ban sparks panic among refugees awaiting urgent medical care in U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel for the kid but not being able to come here for treatment due to a travel ban isn't the same as this kid's circumstances.
> 
> I don't see your correlation....who's pulling the plug on the Iraqi child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The child is going to die without treatment that is unavailable to him in his country.  What's the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like everything, two entirely different scenarios. Stop moving the goal posts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really.  The only difference is that the child with cancer has statistically better odds of improvement then Charlie.  So why aren't we clamoring to allow him in for treatment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Muslims fucked around and got a travel ban slapped on them,
> 
> Yes this is two different situations.
Click to expand...



AH.  So that's the answer.  It's not about compassion for children at all.


----------



## Coyote

Coyote said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh it does too, just stop already.
> 
> There was no reason those parents were prohibited from using their own funds to pursue help for that child. NONE!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except the child isn't property....there are limits in what a parent can do to or with a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like taking their child for experimental treatment that they had funds
> to pay for?
> 
> Those types of limits?
> 
> It's bullshit
> 
> Explain how that us just and right in anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to label anything "just or right" on either side.
> 
> The experimental treatment was offered without the doctor ever examining the child or the child's full record.
> 
> So...my question is how far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?
> 
> That's question on the table here...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll let someone else say it for me...h/t Tim
> 
> _Why isn’t this being shouted from every pulpit, every Town Hall, every poster, every newspaper, every commercial interruption in America?
> 
> Why aren’t those who profess to love Freedom and Liberty NOT hanging this shit around the necks of every nihilistic, totalitarian, Demonrat, Nazi, Fascist, Socialist, Obola-Care-Supporter in America?
> 
> Where are the pretentious “Freedom of Choice” advocates?
> 
> Life – or Death – it doesn’t get any simpler than that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask again -  how far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?
> 
> *I don't think there is an easy answer here.  A conscious adult can make decisions or provide direction in the form of a living will.  A child can't.*
Click to expand...


So do you have an answer to this question?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Coyote said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel for the kid but not being able to come here for treatment due to a travel ban isn't the same as this kid's circumstances.
> 
> I don't see your correlation....who's pulling the plug on the Iraqi child?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The child is going to die without treatment that is unavailable to him in his country.  What's the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like everything, two entirely different scenarios. Stop moving the goal posts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really.  The only difference is that the child with cancer has statistically better odds of improvement then Charlie.  So why aren't we clamoring to allow him in for treatment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Muslims fucked around and got a travel ban slapped on them,
> 
> Yes this is two different situations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> AH.  So that's the answer.  It's not about compassion for children at all.
Click to expand...


AH there it is, your usual pandering to Muslims.

Who would pay for the child's expenses? Charlie's parents were footing his bill. 

It's not the same so cease trying to make it so


----------



## Coyote

SassyIrishLass said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The child is going to die without treatment that is unavailable to him in his country.  What's the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like everything, two entirely different scenarios. Stop moving the goal posts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really.  The only difference is that the child with cancer has statistically better odds of improvement then Charlie.  So why aren't we clamoring to allow him in for treatment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Muslims fucked around and got a travel ban slapped on them,
> 
> Yes this is two different situations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> AH.  So that's the answer.  It's not about compassion for children at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AH there it is, your usual pandering to Muslims.
> 
> Who would pay for the child's expenses? Charlie's parents were footing his bill.
> 
> It's not the same so cease trying to make it so
Click to expand...


I'm not pandering to anything.  I'm pointing out another child in need.  And this is one who can not get even the most basic cancer treatment in his own country.  A child who doesn't even have access to a National Health Care System.

Why should we be less compassionate?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Coyote said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except the child isn't property....there are limits in what a parent can do to or with a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like taking their child for experimental treatment that they had funds
> to pay for?
> 
> Those types of limits?
> 
> It's bullshit
> 
> Explain how that us just and right in anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to label anything "just or right" on either side.
> 
> The experimental treatment was offered without the doctor ever examining the child or the child's full record.
> 
> So...my question is how far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?
> 
> That's question on the table here...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll let someone else say it for me...h/t Tim
> 
> _Why isn’t this being shouted from every pulpit, every Town Hall, every poster, every newspaper, every commercial interruption in America?
> 
> Why aren’t those who profess to love Freedom and Liberty NOT hanging this shit around the necks of every nihilistic, totalitarian, Demonrat, Nazi, Fascist, Socialist, Obola-Care-Supporter in America?
> 
> Where are the pretentious “Freedom of Choice” advocates?
> 
> Life – or Death – it doesn’t get any simpler than that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask again -  how far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?
> 
> *I don't think there is an easy answer here.  A conscious adult can make decisions or provide direction in the form of a living will.  A child can't.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do you have an answer to this question?
Click to expand...


Yeah you fucking imbecile keep the goddamn government out of it....is that clear enough for you?

Now stop fucking repeating yourself like you have some "gottcha" moment. Goddamn Fascist


----------



## Coyote

SassyIrishLass said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like taking their child for experimental treatment that they had funds
> to pay for?
> 
> Those types of limits?
> 
> It's bullshit
> 
> Explain how that us just and right in anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to label anything "just or right" on either side.
> 
> The experimental treatment was offered without the doctor ever examining the child or the child's full record.
> 
> So...my question is how far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?
> 
> That's question on the table here...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll let someone else say it for me...h/t Tim
> 
> _Why isn’t this being shouted from every pulpit, every Town Hall, every poster, every newspaper, every commercial interruption in America?
> 
> Why aren’t those who profess to love Freedom and Liberty NOT hanging this shit around the necks of every nihilistic, totalitarian, Demonrat, Nazi, Fascist, Socialist, Obola-Care-Supporter in America?
> 
> Where are the pretentious “Freedom of Choice” advocates?
> 
> Life – or Death – it doesn’t get any simpler than that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask again -  how far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?
> 
> *I don't think there is an easy answer here.  A conscious adult can make decisions or provide direction in the form of a living will.  A child can't.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do you have an answer to this question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah you fucking imbecile keep the goddamn government out of it....is that clear enough for you?
> 
> Now stop fucking repeating yourself like you have some "gottcha" moment. Goddamn Fascist
Click to expand...


I politely answered YOUR question when you demanded it.

I'll ask again -  how far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?

I don't think there is a clear answer and that is at the heart of this.

As far as the other child - there really isn't a difference is there Sassy?  I do not think you are hard hearted.


----------



## PredFan

Coyote said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop trying to explain that the best interests of the patient is to die.   That's ridiculous.  Many killers have used that excuse.  It doesn't work.
> 
> Socialized medicine is all about how many people die.  That's success.  It's part of utopian philosophy.   Medical innovation and extending life is prohibited and that is why Charlie Gard died.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NPR did an interesting series some time back on medical systems in other countries as well as ours - how they worked, what their citizens felt about them etc - even "socialized" medicine takes many different forms.  What was interesting was the expectations for things like end of life care and choices.  What summed it up was a quote from a European:  Europeans feel death is inevitable.  Americans feel death is negotiable.
> 
> Socialized medicine is not about "how many people die" but about how many people have access to care.  And, as I pointed out those who can AFFORD to, can go outside the system for care.  Unlike here for example...where those that CAN'T AFFORD it...don't get care.
Click to expand...


And unlike the Charlie Gard case over THERE, they could afford to but weren't allowed.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The parents and guardians speak for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. Unless you live in a country with socialized medicine then the government and the courts decide. You belong to them. Your child belongs to them. It's not a difficult truth to grasp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not always.  Sometimes the courts are needed to speak for the voiceless, because what the parents are doing is child abuse.  A child isn't property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In Socialized Medicine, a child is the property of the state. That is blatantly obvious in this case. There was no child abuse, it was exactly the opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not the case here.  It was a case of medical ethics and the child's interests vs the parents.  It has nothing to do with socialized medicine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The parents wanted to give him a chance at gene therapy. How is that NOT in the child's interest? The NHS told him to die.. WITHOUT the ability to TRY a new procedure that NHS doesn't WANT to cover.
> 
> What is this shit about being AGAINST the child's interest? He WAS dying rapidly... Do you understand that situation? WHY would anyone PROHIBIT by LAW of the realm taking him to America for experimental treatment?
> 
> The fact you don't see the REAL FAMILY abuse here -- worries me...  This disease is POTENTIALLY reversible with custom gene therapy. You cannot bring a syringe on an Airplane and fix him 8,000 miles away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In socialized medicine, the child is NOT the property of the state.  That is what I'm trying to tell you.  The argument is deliberately being framed in political terms when it is NOT a political problem for the purpose of attacking socialized medicine.  Socialized medicine has it's pitfalls but every country (that I'm aware of) allows people to go OUTSIDE the system for PRIVATE treatment if they can afford it.
> 
> What makes this case different is medical ethics laws and the rights of the child.  Every civilized country - regardless of whether or not they have socialized medicine or something else - has laws to protect the rights of the child from potential medical abuse in a conflict between parents and whomever advocates for the child (doctors, social workers, courts).
> 
> Here are some similar cases without socialized medicine:
> http://ascopubs.org/doi/full/10.1200/jco.2006.06.4709
> Judge rules family can't refuse chemo for boy
> The sad saga of an Amish girl with a curable cancer whose parents are refusing chemotherapy in favor of “natural healing”
> She Had a 'Grapefruit-Sized Tumor' on Her Shoulder. Her Mom Chose Prayer Over the E.R.
> 
> In all those cases there are similarities and differences to Charlie Gard.
> 
> One of the things that the doctors were concerned about was whether the infant was suffering.- no one could say for sure because he was incapable of showing how he felt.   It's easy to assume that neural diseases like motor neuron diseases or degeneration isn't painful, but people with MS for example can and do experience a great deal of pain.   No one knows what he is suffering because all they see is the imobile exterior.  So ARE they prolonging a child's suffering for a treatment that is - CURRENTLY - the equivalent of pumping them full of Vit-C?  We laught at that, but take this one seriously because it involves test tubes and labs but like Vit C - has undergone NO clinical trials and has never been tried on this defect based on the statements of a doctor who had not looked at a single record when he gave his statistics.
> 
> You can choose either way - I certainly sympathize with the parents, hell who wouldn't?  It's a nightmare and any normal parent would grasp at anything that could offer a glimmer of hope - even quackery.  But I also understand the doctors point of view - they are bound by certain ethics to NOT cause suffering.  They aren't villains either.  And I understand the courts - SOMEONE should be speaking for the child's interest since he can not and the parents might not be able to see that.  They aren't villains either.  It's a heartrending case no matter what and each thinks they are doing the best for the child.
> 
> And it IS a VERY VERY political argument.  I'm not trying to sound cruel but you have a picture circulated of a beautiful white European infant boy looking like he's just asleep.  Attached to it you have labels like "State passes death sentance on baby Charlie".  You have a concerted AMERICAN rightwing attack on socialized medicine and "death panels" at the same time as the latest attempt to repeal ACA falls flat.  You couldn't ask for a better political poster child - who's going to really check the facts in the face of that lovely tragic child?  Not many...because if they do...they're going to be labeled "baby killers".  In fact they are.
> 
> It's very political because around the world we have children in desperate need of life saving or life altering treatment they can't get at home - either they're too poor, their countries are too war torn or in political upheavel or there simply is no decent healthcare.  They never make it to the news.  How many infants have been badly damaged in the Syrian conflict or the Iraq war?  Is anyone making waves?  Demanding those children be brought to the US...or making them American citizens?  Charlie lived in a nation with excellent health care - not perfect, but no system is including our own.  He was attended to by doctors who are pretty top notch in their field - we're not talking physician assistents.  HIS heavily criticized healthcare system has paid for everything including the very expensive process of keeping him alive.  Had he been in the US, unable to afford insurance but not poor enough for medicaid - his parents couldn't have afforded that care and would likely have bankrupted themselves and accumulated high medical bills in an effort to keep their child alive.  And - in this country, because our laws are a little different - they MIGHT have been able to get the treatment they were trying for.  But it wouldn't have involved taking a medically fragile dying child on a transatlantic flight, causing an unknown mount of suffering.
> 
> I don't blame the parents.
> I don't blame the doctors.
> I don't blame the courts.
> They all tried to make the best of a very difficult decision.
Click to expand...

There is definitely a political edge to this, one that is not being discussed at all over here.
The puzzling thing is that Trump was making all this grandstanding over this child when he was intent on depriving millions of Americans of health cover. 
Surely people can see that they are being played ?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Coyote said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to label anything "just or right" on either side.
> 
> The experimental treatment was offered without the doctor ever examining the child or the child's full record.
> 
> So...my question is how far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?
> 
> That's question on the table here...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll let someone else say it for me...h/t Tim
> 
> _Why isn’t this being shouted from every pulpit, every Town Hall, every poster, every newspaper, every commercial interruption in America?
> 
> Why aren’t those who profess to love Freedom and Liberty NOT hanging this shit around the necks of every nihilistic, totalitarian, Demonrat, Nazi, Fascist, Socialist, Obola-Care-Supporter in America?
> 
> Where are the pretentious “Freedom of Choice” advocates?
> 
> Life – or Death – it doesn’t get any simpler than that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask again -  how far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?
> 
> *I don't think there is an easy answer here.  A conscious adult can make decisions or provide direction in the form of a living will.  A child can't.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do you have an answer to this question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah you fucking imbecile keep the goddamn government out of it....is that clear enough for you?
> 
> Now stop fucking repeating yourself like you have some "gottcha" moment. Goddamn Fascist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I politely answered YOUR question when you demanded it.
> 
> I'll ask again -  how far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?
> 
> I don't think there is a clear answer and that is at the heart of this.
> 
> As far as the other child - there really isn't a difference is there Sassy?  I do not think you are hard hearted.
Click to expand...


Yes there is a difference, an entire world of difference, I don't see anyone in Iraq telling the child's parents they can't bring him here. The kid is caught up in a travel ban, that is nowhere near what prevented Charlie Gard from coming here....or anywhere else for that matter 

Is a court in Iraq saying the kid has to die? It's apples and oranges


----------



## PredFan

SassyIrishLass said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the case here.  It was a case of medical ethics and the child's interests vs the parents.  It has nothing to do with socialized medicine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh it does too, just stop already.
> 
> There was no reason those parents were prohibited from using their own funds to pursue help for that child. NONE!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except the child isn't property....there are limits in what a parent can do to or with a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like taking their child for experimental treatment that they had funds
> to pay for?
> 
> Those types of limits?
> 
> It's bullshit
> 
> Explain how that us just and right in anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to label anything "just or right" on either side.
> 
> The experimental treatment was offered without the doctor ever examining the child or the child's full record.
> 
> So...my question is how far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?
> 
> That's question on the table here...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll let someone else say it for me...h/t Tim
> 
> _Why isn’t this being shouted from every pulpit, every Town Hall, every poster, every newspaper, every commercial interruption in America?
> 
> Why aren’t those who profess to love Freedom and Liberty NOT hanging this shit around the necks of every nihilistic, totalitarian, Demonrat, Nazi, Fascist, Socialist, Obola-Care-Supporter in America?
> 
> Where are the pretentious “Freedom of Choice” advocates?
> 
> Life – or Death – it doesn’t get any simpler than that._
Click to expand...


I've been posting it all over Facebook.


----------



## Coyote

PredFan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop trying to explain that the best interests of the patient is to die.   That's ridiculous.  Many killers have used that excuse.  It doesn't work.
> 
> Socialized medicine is all about how many people die.  That's success.  It's part of utopian philosophy.   Medical innovation and extending life is prohibited and that is why Charlie Gard died.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NPR did an interesting series some time back on medical systems in other countries as well as ours - how they worked, what their citizens felt about them etc - even "socialized" medicine takes many different forms.  What was interesting was the expectations for things like end of life care and choices.  What summed it up was a quote from a European:  Europeans feel death is inevitable.  Americans feel death is negotiable.
> 
> Socialized medicine is not about "how many people die" but about how many people have access to care.  And, as I pointed out those who can AFFORD to, can go outside the system for care.  Unlike here for example...where those that CAN'T AFFORD it...don't get care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And unlike the Charlie Gard case over THERE, they could afford to but weren't allowed.
Click to expand...


Sort of...they collected donations from crowd source funding.  There is no information on whether this other child doesn't also have charitable funding or donations.


----------



## Coyote

SassyIrishLass said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll let someone else say it for me...h/t Tim
> 
> _Why isn’t this being shouted from every pulpit, every Town Hall, every poster, every newspaper, every commercial interruption in America?
> 
> Why aren’t those who profess to love Freedom and Liberty NOT hanging this shit around the necks of every nihilistic, totalitarian, Demonrat, Nazi, Fascist, Socialist, Obola-Care-Supporter in America?
> 
> Where are the pretentious “Freedom of Choice” advocates?
> 
> Life – or Death – it doesn’t get any simpler than that._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask again -  how far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?
> 
> *I don't think there is an easy answer here.  A conscious adult can make decisions or provide direction in the form of a living will.  A child can't.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do you have an answer to this question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah you fucking imbecile keep the goddamn government out of it....is that clear enough for you?
> 
> Now stop fucking repeating yourself like you have some "gottcha" moment. Goddamn Fascist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I politely answered YOUR question when you demanded it.
> 
> I'll ask again -  how far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?
> 
> I don't think there is a clear answer and that is at the heart of this.
> 
> As far as the other child - there really isn't a difference is there Sassy?  I do not think you are hard hearted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes there is a difference, an entire world of difference, I don't see anyone in Iraq telling the child's parents they can't bring him here. The kid is caught up in a travel ban, that is nowhere near what prevented Charlie Gard from coming here....or anywhere else for that matter
> 
> Is a court in Iraq saying the kid has to die? It's apples and oranges
Click to expand...


I don't see any difference - the child could be treated if allowed to come here.  The fact that it's the government on the other side of the ocean making that decision makes no difference.


----------



## PredFan

Coyote said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop trying to explain that the best interests of the patient is to die.   That's ridiculous.  Many killers have used that excuse.  It doesn't work.
> 
> Socialized medicine is all about how many people die.  That's success.  It's part of utopian philosophy.   Medical innovation and extending life is prohibited and that is why Charlie Gard died.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NPR did an interesting series some time back on medical systems in other countries as well as ours - how they worked, what their citizens felt about them etc - even "socialized" medicine takes many different forms.  What was interesting was the expectations for things like end of life care and choices.  What summed it up was a quote from a European:  Europeans feel death is inevitable.  Americans feel death is negotiable.
> 
> Socialized medicine is not about "how many people die" but about how many people have access to care.  And, as I pointed out those who can AFFORD to, can go outside the system for care.  Unlike here for example...where those that CAN'T AFFORD it...don't get care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And unlike the Charlie Gard case over THERE, they could afford to but weren't allowed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sort of...they collected donations from crowd source funding.  There is no information on whether this other child doesn't also have charitable funding or donations.
Click to expand...


It seems that if they did get the money, they would not be allowed.


----------



## Coyote

How far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?


----------



## PredFan

Coyote said:


> How far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?


Pain? Distress? You don't know that. We have ways to deal with both.


----------



## Coyote

PredFan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> How far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?
> 
> 
> 
> Pain? Distress? You don't know that. We have ways to deal with both.
Click to expand...


The problem with Charlie was no one could tell.  How would he handle a transatlantic flight and the pressures?  A lot of questions for a treatment that offered almost a nonexistent chance given the degree of damage already done - brain tissue that badly damaged doesn't regenerate for example and that was in January when he began suffering seizures.


----------



## irosie91

Coyote said:


> How far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?



there was no evidence of pain and distress as far as I know.    Even if the child SEEMED
to grimace or weep-----I have no idea if he did-----such a manifestation would
not prove or even suggest that he has any awareness at all.  -----the roving eyes of a
human in the status of  "comadepasse"   is deceiving.    I did not buy into the  "suffering" 
thing that the british authorities tried to pass of as FACT.  ------anyone know the actual diagnosis?


----------



## Coyote

irosie91 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> How far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there was no evidence of pain and distress as far as I know.    Even if the child SEEMED
> to grimace or weep-----I have no idea if he did-----such a manifestation would
> not prove or even suggest that he has any awareness at all.  -----the roving eyes of a
> human in the status of  "comadepasse"   is deceiving.    I did not buy into the  "suffering"
> thing that the british authorities tried to pass of as FACT.  ------anyone know the actual diagnosis?
Click to expand...


That's kind of what I meant.  No one knows for sure what he is feeling or capable of feeling, you can't make assumptions.  Do you assume he doesn't feel anything?  I think that is kind of a risky thing to assume.

The actual diagnosis was some sort of mitochondria defect.


----------



## badger2

"Nothing is hidden." Competition and knowledge envy are hidden within this story.

Dr. Jayaram: "Only GOSH, Charlie's parents, and respective legal teams had seen everything."

We can appreciate Jayaram's approach to esoterica to help mystify the story. Only a handful of (esoteric) experts who know each other could really comment on this arrogance. The corresponding anal retention is that Hirano is reified as an entity whilst what he proposed is also kept esoteric. This shows that others other than Hirano had evidence, because Hirano had to rely on others' studies to propose the other evidence in the first place. Once again, these other entities are kept hidden from view, which makes it easy for Jayaram to invoke terms such as "speculation."


----------



## irosie91

Coyote said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> How far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there was no evidence of pain and distress as far as I know.    Even if the child SEEMED
> to grimace or weep-----I have no idea if he did-----such a manifestation would
> not prove or even suggest that he has any awareness at all.  -----the roving eyes of a
> human in the status of  "comadepasse"   is deceiving.    I did not buy into the  "suffering"
> thing that the british authorities tried to pass of as FACT.  ------anyone know the actual diagnosis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's kind of what I meant.  No one knows for sure what he is feeling or capable of feeling, you can't make assumptions.  Do you assume he doesn't feel anything?  I think that is kind of a risky thing to assume.
> 
> The actual diagnosis was some sort of mitochondria defect.
Click to expand...


the person who could render the most reliable opinion would be the neurologist that examined him


----------



## badger2

Not necessarily the neurologist is the most reliable when the patient hovers on the interstice of the vegetative state. One approach is to go back to the concept of neurogastrointestinal encephalomyopathy, just as we are doing on the cancer thread.
Administration of deoxyribonucleosides or inhibition of their catabolism as a pharmacological approach for mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome.  - PubMed - NCBI


----------



## PredFan

Coyote said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> How far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?
> 
> 
> 
> Pain? Distress? You don't know that. We have ways to deal with both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with Charlie was no one could tell.  How would he handle a transatlantic flight and the pressures?  A lot of questions for a treatment that offered almost a nonexistent chance given the degree of damage already done - brain tissue that badly damaged doesn't regenerate for example and that was in January when he began suffering seizures.
Click to expand...


Being in Medicine myself, I've seen brain damages people accomplish amazing things. 

The point is that it wasn't the courts decision to make.


----------



## irosie91

badger2 said:


> Not necessarily the neurologist is the most reliable when the patient hovers on the interstice of the vegetative state. One approach is to go back to the concept of neurogastrointestinal encephalomyopathy, just as we are doing on the cancer thread.
> Administration of deoxyribonucleosides or inhibition of their catabolism as a pharmacological approach for mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome.  - PubMed - NCBI



ok----very complicated-----but you cannot FIX MITOCHONDRIA   -------at this point in history.    The problem is not a single gene that can be VECTORED in--------the mitochondria have MINDS OF THEIR OWN----THEIR OWN SELF REPRODUCING COMMUNITIES--   SO FAR THERE IS NO    total mitochondria exchange


----------



## irosie91

PredFan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> How far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?
> 
> 
> 
> Pain? Distress? You don't know that. We have ways to deal with both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with Charlie was no one could tell.  How would he handle a transatlantic flight and the pressures?  A lot of questions for a treatment that offered almost a nonexistent chance given the degree of damage already done - brain tissue that badly damaged doesn't regenerate for example and that was in January when he began suffering seizures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being in Medicine myself, I've seen brain damages people accomplish amazing things.
> 
> The point is that it wasn't the courts decision to make.
Click to expand...


Good point----but being in medicine myself----I would say that even with the various manipulations
available----this poor kid was not really going to get anywhere but miserable-----sad but true


----------



## PredFan

irosie91 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> How far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?
> 
> 
> 
> Pain? Distress? You don't know that. We have ways to deal with both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with Charlie was no one could tell.  How would he handle a transatlantic flight and the pressures?  A lot of questions for a treatment that offered almost a nonexistent chance given the degree of damage already done - brain tissue that badly damaged doesn't regenerate for example and that was in January when he began suffering seizures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being in Medicine myself, I've seen brain damages people accomplish amazing things.
> 
> The point is that it wasn't the courts decision to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good point----but being in medicine myself----I would say that even with the various manipulations
> available----this poor kid was not really going to get anywhere but miserable-----sad but true
Click to expand...


You can't say that, you don't know that. The point is still that it isn't the court's decision to make. Or it shouldn't be anyway. Single payer, single decider, and it ain't you.


----------



## jillian

flacaltenn said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any thinking and caring person would think that...you have to try
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They should have at least been given the option, even if it was a fool's hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ponder it for a minute. Having to BEG for permission to allow your child a shot at new therapy. Wasn't actually a fools hope.  At that point, you take the doctor that gives you 20%...
Click to expand...


and if you have to beg a profit driven insurance company? get real.

seriously... 


and in any event why would you want to torture a being who can neither breathe on his own nor move by forcing extraodinary measures to keep him alive?


----------



## flacaltenn

Coyote said:


> *Bear in mind however that in January, the only medical professionals in a position to fully assess Charlie and have enough information to make informed judgments on his prognosis were those at GOSH.* GOSH also *asked other external, experienced paediatricians to assess him independently, including a metabolic specialist from Southampton* whom Charlie’s parents had wanted to assess him. *All of these professionals agreed with the GOSH view that his underlying condition had progressed to a point where any intervention would be futile, only serving to prolong the process of dying rather than improving his quality of life.*



I've explained that. ASSESSMENT in this case, means days of lab tests to determine the suitability of NBT.  Tests that can NOW only be done in the specialized lab of Dr Hirano with a full staff trained for the protocols. 

GOSH ADMITS it lacked the ability to judge the efficacy of the NBT treatment or they wouldn't be asking Hirano to come talk to them. And a favorable RECOMMENDATION from them would not ASSURE that NHS would release the child for treatment anyway..  

WAS NO REASON for Hirano to visit. WAS --- a reason to get the child to his lab in the US...  So GOSH being a structural bureaucracy with ZERO INCENTIVE to save the child -- just decided to deprive him of a chance for remission. 

When you're racing the clock, there is NO TIME for Bureaucratic "diplomacy".  They will kill a HUNDRED Charlies before anyone prioritizes a "Fast Track" approval for cases like this. 

Researchers are NOT ADVOCATES.  Couldn't live with themselves if they OVERSOLD hope. THey need to MEASURE and ASSESS their technique in THEIR LAB before handing out any hope. 

I know this. I understand a lot of the new "custom gene therapy" that's going on. I've been to many specialized labs to understand the equipment I design for their processes. And my daughter is now is this area. 

It's NOT portable. In any shape or form.  And in terms of ASSESSING any CURRENT med stats on the child, it's ALL on record. Don't NEED a stethoscope or to touch him....


----------



## flacaltenn

Understand that by APRIL -- Courts had already RULED not only to deny transfer of care --- *BUT they ruled to PULL HIS PLUG.. To kill him back in April... *And there were extensions to this. But it took from January to April for fucking Bureaucracy to RULE. And then an appeal to the Intl Courts. 

Parents had procured FUNDING and the tactical problems of life flighting over to the US in JANUARY... 

Dr Hirano would NOT have allowed that transfer to happen, if he believed it would kill the child or that the child was too far progressed to treat..  IN JANUARY --- when it NEEDED to happen.. 

Timeline: Parents' battle to save Charlie Gard

The PROCESS killed Charlie and they wanted him DEAD BEFORE April...


----------



## badger2

It's not exactly the idea of fixing mitochondria. One important Hirano, et al link is Barcelona, 2011:

Neurogastrointestinal dCTP 
Limited dCTP availability accounts for mitochondrial DNA depletion in mitochondrial neurogastrointestinal encephalomyopathy (MNGIE).  - PubMed - NCBI

The medical arrogance involved consists of a presupposition that served to over-ride Charlie's own genome and its potentials: "All of these professionals agreed." Even if Charlie was at the point of no return, his genome would have been given the human right to express itself into death, and by doing so, yield up a bit more information on rare diseases. Charlie was deprived of a potential chance embedded in his very own genome by the action of pulling the plug on him. Arrogant Bastards.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Who knows what could have bee learned from this experimental treatment.  How far would the cause of a cure be advanced?  We don't know because the left hates science.

What we do know is if the exact same situation had ended with parents refusing an experimental treatment because they accepted God's Will and let the child die, they left would want both their heads.  

As long as God is the government,  the left is happy.  And, no one should make a profit off of new investions.


----------



## badger2

Charlie could have made it to Hirano's lab and been given the same chance that Henrietta Lacks would have wanted.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Tipsycatlover said:


> What we do know is if the exact same situation had ended with parents refusing an experimental treatment because they accepted God's Will and let the child die, they left would want both their heads.
> 
> .



^^^^^^^^

THAT THAT and THAT


----------



## flacaltenn

Father of a child who Dr Hirano saved from death --- describes the ordeal this way..

US doctor's experimental treatment 'saved my son'

*But Mr Estopinan, who has met Charlie's parents and been in contact with them throughout their battle, described the doctor as "an angel" and "a saint".

He told Sky News: "He saved my son and he has saved about 16 or 18 other children around the world with these devastating diseases and he is coming up with new, experimental medications for other neural generative muscular disorders.

"It is unfortunate and regrettable that GOSH decided to fight for Charlie to die in the legal courts in the UK rather than to treat him in the hospital.

"As doctors, everyone would expect they would try to save his life and fight for his life but regrettably GOSH and Charlie's doctors fought for him to die."

He described Professor Hirano as "an incredible... brilliant scientist... and incredible medical doctor and a compassionate father".

He said the professor had "wanted to save" Charlie but that the hospital had "allowed (him) to waste away for eight months", something he described as "shameful" and "despicable".

"We live in 2017," he said.

"This is a tech-advanced society.

"Without insulting anyone, I highly recommend these doctors in the UK to get informed."
*
16 or 18 children SAVED by cutting edge Med Tech.  But not in Britain. They are "plug-pullers" and dawdlers and cynical protectors of the "bottom line" to their POWER to make ALL the life/death decisions..

Same deal as with my Dad. You do it THEIR WAY -- or they let patients die....


----------



## EvilCat Breath

badger2 said:


> Charlie could have made it to Hirano's lab and been given the same chance that Henrietta Lacks would have wanted.


Except there was no experimental treatment for Lacks' cancer.   There was nothing until routine cell collection revealed that her cancer cells were immortal.


----------



## flacaltenn

Coyote said:


> How far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?



what does pain and distress MEAN in this case?? And why is that clouding your judgement?


----------



## Death Angel

I wonder why the Left doesn't worry about the "pain and distress" being inflicted on our death row inmates in not executing them swiftly.

The Left loves the death of the innocent but fights constantly for the lives of our violent scum


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Death Angel said:


> I wonder why the Left doesn't worry about the "pain and distress" being inflicted on our death row inmates in not executing them swiftly.
> 
> The Left loves the death of the innocent but fights constantly for the lives of our violent scum



The left's priorities are a bit skewed


----------



## irosie91

PredFan said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> How far can you ethically be allowed to go in creating pain and distress to a child without out a reasonable expectation of some improvement?
> 
> 
> 
> Pain? Distress? You don't know that. We have ways to deal with both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with Charlie was no one could tell.  How would he handle a transatlantic flight and the pressures?  A lot of questions for a treatment that offered almost a nonexistent chance given the degree of damage already done - brain tissue that badly damaged doesn't regenerate for example and that was in January when he began suffering seizures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being in Medicine myself, I've seen brain damages people accomplish amazing things.
> 
> The point is that it wasn't the courts decision to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good point----but being in medicine myself----I would say that even with the various manipulations
> available----this poor kid was not really going to get anywhere but miserable-----sad but true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't say that, you don't know that. The point is still that it isn't the court's decision to make. Or it shouldn't be anyway. Single payer, single decider, and it ain't you.
Click to expand...


I based my comment about the kid's future on his DIAGNOSIS-----that's what a diagnosis is for---
it includes a prediction of the future.   sad but true


----------



## flacaltenn

jillian said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any thinking and caring person would think that...you have to try
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They should have at least been given the option, even if it was a fool's hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ponder it for a minute. Having to BEG for permission to allow your child a shot at new therapy. Wasn't actually a fools hope.  At that point, you take the doctor that gives you 20%...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and if you have to beg a profit driven insurance company? get real.
> 
> seriously...
> 
> 
> and in any event why would you want to torture a being who can neither breathe on his own nor move by forcing extraodinary measures to keep him alive?
Click to expand...


You're anti Capitalist rhetoric is bold and intimidating. But the FACT IS --- NO insurance company would ever FORCIBLY DENY YOU the right to pay for and seek Alternate treatment.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

The left has certainly deflected from the only real issue.  People who had the ability to pay for treatment were prohibited from receiving anything but death.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Tipsycatlover said:


> The left has certainly deflected from the only real issue.  People who had the ability to pay for treatment were prohibited from receiving anything but death.



You know if it were them and the same situation they'd be screaming it's unfair. They'll never admit it but when faced with realities they would


----------



## Lucy Hamilton

Tipsycatlover said:


> The left has certainly deflected from the only real issue.  People who had the ability to pay for treatment were prohibited from receiving anything but death.



Many of the Leftists are for Abortion being used as a means of contraception, killing a baby In Utero, so why do you expect them to care about dying babies who have already been born.

Rather than take even a 5% chance, they would prefer to just allow a baby to die. The treatment for Charlie Gard might not have been successful, but the medical profession might have learned more and along the way might have been able to eventually help other babies with the same problem Charlie Gard had.

See the articles in this thread I posted re. Proton Beam Therapy, they ALL said that wouldn't have ANY effect and now two years after that childs case, the scientists say that Proton Beam Therapy does have an effect. 

The Leftist brain doesn't go that far though.


----------



## jillian

flacaltenn said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any thinking and caring person would think that...you have to try
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They should have at least been given the option, even if it was a fool's hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ponder it for a minute. Having to BEG for permission to allow your child a shot at new therapy. Wasn't actually a fools hope.  At that point, you take the doctor that gives you 20%...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and if you have to beg a profit driven insurance company? get real.
> 
> seriously...
> 
> 
> and in any event why would you want to torture a being who can neither breathe on his own nor move by forcing extraodinary measures to keep him alive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're anti Capitalist rhetoric is bold and intimidating. But the FACT IS --- NO insurance company would ever FORCIBLY DENY YOU the right to pay for and seek Alternate treatment.
Click to expand...


I'm not anti-capitalist. that's your wing nut delusion.

now respond to what I said and not to what you made up in your head.

again, do you think a profit driven insurance company is the appropriate arbiter of who should receive health care? they make those decisions ALL THE TIME.

and again, why on earth should a being who can not eat food, cannot breathe and cannot move be kept alive artificially?


----------



## badger2

Arturito Estopinan
http://www.featureworld.co.uk/arturito-estopinan-the-little-boy-inspiring-charlie-gards-parents/


----------



## badger2

Because Charlie Gard had a rare disease that was put under the influence of a substance whose mechanism of action is still not precisely known, we add Sevoflurane to the files:

Sevoflurane
Sevoflurane - Wikipedia


----------



## flacaltenn

jillian said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any thinking and caring person would think that...you have to try
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They should have at least been given the option, even if it was a fool's hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ponder it for a minute. Having to BEG for permission to allow your child a shot at new therapy. Wasn't actually a fools hope.  At that point, you take the doctor that gives you 20%...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and if you have to beg a profit driven insurance company? get real.
> 
> seriously...
> 
> 
> and in any event why would you want to torture a being who can neither breathe on his own nor move by forcing extraodinary measures to keep him alive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're anti Capitalist rhetoric is bold and intimidating. But the FACT IS --- NO insurance company would ever FORCIBLY DENY YOU the right to pay for and seek Alternate treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not anti-capitalist. that's your wing nut delusion.
> 
> now respond to what I said and not to what you made up in your head.
> 
> again, do you think a profit driven insurance company is the appropriate arbiter of who should receive health care? they make those decisions ALL THE TIME.
> 
> and again, why on earth should a being who can not eat food, cannot breathe and cannot move be kept alive artificially?
Click to expand...


Noise noise noise.  NO -- I stand by my answer. A "profit driven" insurance company NEVER prevents personal choices *to choose and fund* alternative treatments.. 

You can persist. But you'd just prove the axiom that leftists have no conception of how things actually work..


----------



## Carter Malone

Tipsycatlover said:


> The left has certainly deflected from the only real issue.  People who had the ability to pay for treatment were prohibited from receiving anything but death.



There was not and is not any "treatment".

The US doctors were clear that all they could do was extend his time on a respirator.

Nothing else.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## jillian

flacaltenn said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> They should have at least been given the option, even if it was a fool's hope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ponder it for a minute. Having to BEG for permission to allow your child a shot at new therapy. Wasn't actually a fools hope.  At that point, you take the doctor that gives you 20%...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and if you have to beg a profit driven insurance company? get real.
> 
> seriously...
> 
> 
> and in any event why would you want to torture a being who can neither breathe on his own nor move by forcing extraodinary measures to keep him alive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're anti Capitalist rhetoric is bold and intimidating. But the FACT IS --- NO insurance company would ever FORCIBLY DENY YOU the right to pay for and seek Alternate treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not anti-capitalist. that's your wing nut delusion.
> 
> now respond to what I said and not to what you made up in your head.
> 
> again, do you think a profit driven insurance company is the appropriate arbiter of who should receive health care? they make those decisions ALL THE TIME.
> 
> and again, why on earth should a being who can not eat food, cannot breathe and cannot move be kept alive artificially?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Noise noise noise.  NO -- I stand by my answer. A "profit driven" insurance company NEVER prevents personal choices *to choose and fund* alternative treatments..
> 
> You can persist. But you'd just prove the axiom that leftists have no conception of how things actually work..
Click to expand...


in other words, you know you're full of it and have no answer.... here's how "things work", wing nut... people can't get treatment without paying for it. insurance company refuses to pay or dumps you when you get sick... no treatment. 

for someone as clueless as you, you have a hella lot of stupid assumptions about what others know.


----------



## Carter Malone

jillian said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any thinking and caring person would think that...you have to try
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They should have at least been given the option, even if it was a fool's hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ponder it for a minute. Having to BEG for permission to allow your child a shot at new therapy. Wasn't actually a fools hope.  At that point, you take the doctor that gives you 20%...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and if you have to beg a profit driven insurance company? get real.
> 
> seriously...
> 
> 
> and in any event why would you want to torture a being who can neither breathe on his own nor move by forcing extraodinary measures to keep him alive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're anti Capitalist rhetoric is bold and intimidating. But the FACT IS --- NO insurance company would ever FORCIBLY DENY YOU the right to pay for and seek Alternate treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not anti-capitalist. that's your wing nut delusion.
> 
> now respond to what I said and not to what you made up in your head.
> 
> again, do you think a profit driven insurance company is the appropriate arbiter of who should receive health care? they make those decisions ALL THE TIME.
> 
> and again, why on earth should a being who can not eat food, cannot breathe and cannot move be kept alive artificially?
Click to expand...



Your last line -

Who of us would choose that existence for ourselves?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## jillian

Carter Malone said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> They should have at least been given the option, even if it was a fool's hope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ponder it for a minute. Having to BEG for permission to allow your child a shot at new therapy. Wasn't actually a fools hope.  At that point, you take the doctor that gives you 20%...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and if you have to beg a profit driven insurance company? get real.
> 
> seriously...
> 
> 
> and in any event why would you want to torture a being who can neither breathe on his own nor move by forcing extraodinary measures to keep him alive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're anti Capitalist rhetoric is bold and intimidating. But the FACT IS --- NO insurance company would ever FORCIBLY DENY YOU the right to pay for and seek Alternate treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not anti-capitalist. that's your wing nut delusion.
> 
> now respond to what I said and not to what you made up in your head.
> 
> again, do you think a profit driven insurance company is the appropriate arbiter of who should receive health care? they make those decisions ALL THE TIME.
> 
> and again, why on earth should a being who can not eat food, cannot breathe and cannot move be kept alive artificially?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your last line -
> 
> Who of us would choose that existence for ourselves?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...


we're kinder to our pets than we are to people.


----------



## Death Angel

jillian said:


> we're kinder to our pets than we are to people.


Because they're better creatures than many people. Humans can be pretty vile.


----------



## flacaltenn

Carter Malone said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left has certainly deflected from the only real issue.  People who had the ability to pay for treatment were prohibited from receiving anything but death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was not and is not any "treatment".
> 
> The US doctors were clear that all they could do was extend his time on a respirator.
> 
> Nothing else.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...


*That wasn't true in January thru April.*. By June/July, it was too late. Had the NHS not sent this court and tied it up and ORDERED CHARLIE TO DIE in April --- THERE WAS a hefty chance of remission. Actually BETTER than many cancer chemo therapies. 

Get your facts straight.


----------



## flacaltenn

jillian said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ponder it for a minute. Having to BEG for permission to allow your child a shot at new therapy. Wasn't actually a fools hope.  At that point, you take the doctor that gives you 20%...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and if you have to beg a profit driven insurance company? get real.
> 
> seriously...
> 
> 
> and in any event why would you want to torture a being who can neither breathe on his own nor move by forcing extraodinary measures to keep him alive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're anti Capitalist rhetoric is bold and intimidating. But the FACT IS --- NO insurance company would ever FORCIBLY DENY YOU the right to pay for and seek Alternate treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not anti-capitalist. that's your wing nut delusion.
> 
> now respond to what I said and not to what you made up in your head.
> 
> again, do you think a profit driven insurance company is the appropriate arbiter of who should receive health care? they make those decisions ALL THE TIME.
> 
> and again, why on earth should a being who can not eat food, cannot breathe and cannot move be kept alive artificially?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Noise noise noise.  NO -- I stand by my answer. A "profit driven" insurance company NEVER prevents personal choices *to choose and fund* alternative treatments..
> 
> You can persist. But you'd just prove the axiom that leftists have no conception of how things actually work..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> in other words, you know you're full of it and have no answer.... here's how "things work", wing nut... people can't get treatment without paying for it. insurance company refuses to pay or dumps you when you get sick... no treatment.
> 
> for someone as clueless as you, you have a hella lot of stupid assumptions about what others know.
Click to expand...


Oh people can get ALL KINDS of treatments without the Insurance Companies paying for it. It just shows up on your bill as "not covered".. They will NEVER TAKE YOU COURT and have the COURT order that you can't. While they pull the plugs on your baby... 

THAT is the basis of THIS case we're discussing. *What's covered and REIMBURSED on an insurance policy should ALSO BE ------ YOUR CALL. * Having the govt DEMAND that you carry coverage you don't need or don't want is also cynical, arrogant and freedom killing..


----------



## Coyote

flacaltenn said:


> Understand that by APRIL -- Courts had already RULED not only to deny transfer of care --- *BUT they ruled to PULL HIS PLUG.. To kill him back in April... *And there were extensions to this. But it took from January to April for fucking Bureaucracy to RULE. And then an appeal to the Intl Courts.
> 
> Parents had procured FUNDING and the tactical problems of life flighting over to the US in JANUARY...
> 
> Dr Hirano would NOT have allowed that transfer to happen, if he believed it would kill the child or that the child was too far progressed to treat..  IN JANUARY --- when it NEEDED to happen..
> 
> Timeline: Parents' battle to save Charlie Gard
> 
> The PROCESS killed Charlie and they wanted him DEAD BEFORE April...


No one wanted him dead.

By January they had determined he had deteriorated to far.  You are creating unnecessary villains.


----------



## Coyote

flacaltenn said:


> Carter Malone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left has certainly deflected from the only real issue.  People who had the ability to pay for treatment were prohibited from receiving anything but death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was not and is not any "treatment".
> 
> The US doctors were clear that all they could do was extend his time on a respirator.
> 
> Nothing else.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *That wasn't true in January thru April.*. By June/July, it was too late. Had the NHS not sent this court and tied it up and ORDERED CHARLIE TO DIE in April --- THERE WAS a hefty chance of remission. Actually BETTER than many cancer chemo therapies.
> 
> Get your facts straight.
Click to expand...

How do you know there was "hefty chance" of remission?


----------



## flacaltenn

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Understand that by APRIL -- Courts had already RULED not only to deny transfer of care --- *BUT they ruled to PULL HIS PLUG.. To kill him back in April... *And there were extensions to this. But it took from January to April for fucking Bureaucracy to RULE. And then an appeal to the Intl Courts.
> 
> Parents had procured FUNDING and the tactical problems of life flighting over to the US in JANUARY...
> 
> Dr Hirano would NOT have allowed that transfer to happen, if he believed it would kill the child or that the child was too far progressed to treat..  IN JANUARY --- when it NEEDED to happen..
> 
> Timeline: Parents' battle to save Charlie Gard
> 
> The PROCESS killed Charlie and they wanted him DEAD BEFORE April...
> 
> 
> 
> No one wanted him dead.
> 
> By January they had determined he had deteriorated to far.  You are creating unnecessary villains.
Click to expand...


Oh HELL no.  Not in January. BHS decided they were gonna FIGHT IT in January. But statements from Hirano say that by June -- he had been ignored too long.. 

In April -- the court ordered him DEAD. But that was their attitude ALL ALONG..


----------



## Coyote

flacaltenn said:


> Father of a child who Dr Hirano saved from death --- describes the ordeal this way..
> 
> US doctor's experimental treatment 'saved my son'
> 
> *But Mr Estopinan, who has met Charlie's parents and been in contact with them throughout their battle, described the doctor as "an angel" and "a saint".
> 
> He told Sky News: "He saved my son and he has saved about 16 or 18 other children around the world with these devastating diseases and he is coming up with new, experimental medications for other neural generative muscular disorders.
> 
> "It is unfortunate and regrettable that GOSH decided to fight for Charlie to die in the legal courts in the UK rather than to treat him in the hospital.
> 
> "As doctors, everyone would expect they would try to save his life and fight for his life but regrettably GOSH and Charlie's doctors fought for him to die."
> 
> He described Professor Hirano as "an incredible... brilliant scientist... and incredible medical doctor and a compassionate father".
> 
> He said the professor had "wanted to save" Charlie but that the hospital had "allowed (him) to waste away for eight months", something he described as "shameful" and "despicable".
> 
> "We live in 2017," he said.
> 
> "This is a tech-advanced society.
> 
> "Without insulting anyone, I highly recommend these doctors in the UK to get informed."
> *
> 16 or 18 children SAVED by cutting edge Med Tech.  But not in Britain. They are "plug-pullers" and dawdlers and cynical protectors of the "bottom line" to their POWER to make ALL the life/death decisions..
> 
> Same deal as with my Dad. You do it THEIR WAY -- or they let patients die....


The hospital had contacted him in January and he could not even be bothered to make look at Charlie's records...something, I might add that no one else has either.


----------



## Synthaholic

PredFan said:


> A Socialized Medicine Death Panel killed that child.


No "god" worth following would allow an innocent baby to suffer like this.


----------



## Synthaholic

SassyIrishLass said:


> *Hopefully The Symbolism of Charlie Gard’s Death as it Relates to Government Healthcare is Not Lost*
> 
> Hopefully The Symbolism of Charlie Gard’s Death as it Relates to Government Healthcare is Not Lost


Yes, because you wingnuts have to immediately try to score cheap political points. You're disgusting, exploiting this baby's death.


----------



## flacaltenn

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carter Malone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left has certainly deflected from the only real issue.  People who had the ability to pay for treatment were prohibited from receiving anything but death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was not and is not any "treatment".
> 
> The US doctors were clear that all they could do was extend his time on a respirator.
> 
> Nothing else.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *That wasn't true in January thru April.*. By June/July, it was too late. Had the NHS not sent this court and tied it up and ORDERED CHARLIE TO DIE in April --- THERE WAS a hefty chance of remission. Actually BETTER than many cancer chemo therapies.
> 
> Get your facts straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know there was "hefty chance" of remission?
Click to expand...


Because the process actually REMAKES the mitochrondrial tranfers work in creating NEW tissue. And the researchers were seeing up to 50% REMISSION --- not just halting the disease in tissue that was still viable. 

The low end/high end given in JANUARY was 15% to 50%.. Read the statement of the guy who had his "dead" child saved by this treatment. 

NOBODY is ever "gonna get rich" off of a process that affects such a small percentage. But it's a stepping stone to reaching OTHER gene therapy treatments and THESE Weirder rarer cases could be done completely "gratis"...  Because they now can. OR nearly can... And it helps the learning curve between LAB results and actual human trials. 

BHS is gonna just close the door on all that. Because they don't want the costs of the Labs, researchers and treatments. It's a political/financial motivation..


----------



## Synthaholic

DigitalDrifter said:


> This will be the future here once government controlled single-payer gets it's tennacles entrenched here.


No one will stop you from buying all the supplemental insurance that you want, pee pants.


----------



## flacaltenn

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Father of a child who Dr Hirano saved from death --- describes the ordeal this way..
> 
> US doctor's experimental treatment 'saved my son'
> 
> *But Mr Estopinan, who has met Charlie's parents and been in contact with them throughout their battle, described the doctor as "an angel" and "a saint".
> 
> He told Sky News: "He saved my son and he has saved about 16 or 18 other children around the world with these devastating diseases and he is coming up with new, experimental medications for other neural generative muscular disorders.
> 
> "It is unfortunate and regrettable that GOSH decided to fight for Charlie to die in the legal courts in the UK rather than to treat him in the hospital.
> 
> "As doctors, everyone would expect they would try to save his life and fight for his life but regrettably GOSH and Charlie's doctors fought for him to die."
> 
> He described Professor Hirano as "an incredible... brilliant scientist... and incredible medical doctor and a compassionate father".
> 
> He said the professor had "wanted to save" Charlie but that the hospital had "allowed (him) to waste away for eight months", something he described as "shameful" and "despicable".
> 
> "We live in 2017," he said.
> 
> "This is a tech-advanced society.
> 
> "Without insulting anyone, I highly recommend these doctors in the UK to get informed."
> *
> 16 or 18 children SAVED by cutting edge Med Tech.  But not in Britain. They are "plug-pullers" and dawdlers and cynical protectors of the "bottom line" to their POWER to make ALL the life/death decisions..
> 
> Same deal as with my Dad. You do it THEIR WAY -- or they let patients die....
> 
> 
> 
> The hospital had contacted him in January and he could not even be bothered to make look at Charlie's records...something, I might add that no one else has either.
Click to expand...


You know what? He had talked to the parents. Gotten access to med records. He gave THEM an assessment and decided NOT to get distracted by the Inquisition and the circus.  I don't blame him for that. He's dedicated to saving lives and doing science. NOT a political advocate. 

No reason to visit in Jan. It was clear that NHS was taking it to court and blocking it.  Tell me... Why should HE enter that useless fight????


----------



## flacaltenn

Synthaholic said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Socialized Medicine Death Panel killed that child.
> 
> 
> 
> No "god" worth following would allow an innocent baby to suffer like this.
Click to expand...


Baby was not "suffering".  What the hell you talking about? The suffering came in 5 MONTHS after the Brit Govt BLOCKED the transfer of this child to the treatment they had selected. 

Govt even PREFERRED he died in April..


----------



## flacaltenn

Synthaholic said:


> DigitalDrifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This will be the future here once government controlled single-payer gets it's tennacles entrenched here.
> 
> 
> 
> No one will stop you from buying all the supplemental insurance that you want, pee pants.
Click to expand...


Oh hell no.. Single payer will OUTLAW doctors performing procedures that are NOT proscribed the way the GOVT WRITES the reimbursements 

It's done in MediCare that way RIGHT now.. That's what killed my father.. You won't find a doctor to do a SPECIAL procedure. Because they won't be reimbursed for any payments on that "event" or "illness"...


----------



## Dr Grump

flacaltenn said:


> Noise noise noise.  NO -- I stand by my answer. A "profit driven" insurance company NEVER prevents personal choices *to choose and fund* alternative treatments..
> 
> You can persist. But you'd just prove the axiom that leftists have no conception of how things actually work..




And the right's main mantra is "UK health bad, US health good". The main plank from the righties is that the US health system sucks and this is a prime example. All Jillian - and Joe to an extent - are pointing out, if this was the US system he wouldn't have gotten any treatment either...


----------



## Dr Grump

flacaltenn said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Socialized Medicine Death Panel killed that child.
> 
> 
> 
> No "god" worth following would allow an innocent baby to suffer like this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baby was not "suffering".  What the hell you talking about? The suffering came in 5 MONTHS after the Brit Govt BLOCKED the transfer of this child to the treatment they had selected.
> 
> Govt even PREFERRED he died in April..
Click to expand...


You haven't a clue when the suffered started or ended. Only the kid did....


----------



## flacaltenn

Dr Grump said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noise noise noise.  NO -- I stand by my answer. A "profit driven" insurance company NEVER prevents personal choices *to choose and fund* alternative treatments..
> 
> You can persist. But you'd just prove the axiom that leftists have no conception of how things actually work..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the right's main mantra is "UK health bad, US health good". The main plank from the righties is that the US health system sucks and this is a prime example. All Jillian - and Joe to an extent - are pointing out, if this was the US system he wouldn't have gotten any treatment either...
Click to expand...


RIGHT NOW -- because of govt laziness and incompetence and arrogance --- we're about 1 year short of COMPLETE COLLAPSE of our system..  Good job partisans...  NOT a good time to compare -- is it really?


----------



## flacaltenn

Dr Grump said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Socialized Medicine Death Panel killed that child.
> 
> 
> 
> No "god" worth following would allow an innocent baby to suffer like this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baby was not "suffering".  What the hell you talking about? The suffering came in 5 MONTHS after the Brit Govt BLOCKED the transfer of this child to the treatment they had selected.
> 
> Govt even PREFERRED he died in April..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't a clue when the suffered started or ended. Only the kid did....
Click to expand...


Kid wasn't conscious after about April..


----------



## Coyote

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Understand that by APRIL -- Courts had already RULED not only to deny transfer of care --- *BUT they ruled to PULL HIS PLUG.. To kill him back in April... *And there were extensions to this. But it took from January to April for fucking Bureaucracy to RULE. And then an appeal to the Intl Courts.
> 
> Parents had procured FUNDING and the tactical problems of life flighting over to the US in JANUARY...
> 
> Dr Hirano would NOT have allowed that transfer to happen, if he believed it would kill the child or that the child was too far progressed to treat..  IN JANUARY --- when it NEEDED to happen..
> 
> Timeline: Parents' battle to save Charlie Gard
> 
> The PROCESS killed Charlie and they wanted him DEAD BEFORE April...
> 
> 
> 
> No one wanted him dead.
> 
> By January they had determined he had deteriorated to far.  You are creating unnecessary villains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh HELL no.  Not in January. BHS decided they were gonna FIGHT IT in January. But statements from Hirano say that by June -- he had been ignored too long..
> 
> In April -- the court ordered him DEAD. But that was their attitude ALL ALONG..
Click to expand...

Maybe not...Charlie Gard: how new brain scans showed he could not be helped

Charlie Gard’s parents were told that their son had *irreversible brain damage after he suffered seizures before Christmas*, but they did not believe it. They maintained that an MRI scan in January showed the brain was normal. That has been the crux of the difference between parents and the hospital. Connie Yates and Chris Gard, bolstered by the opinions of doctors in other countries who had not seen their child, believed treatment was possible.

Their hopes came to an end at the weekend, after Michio Hirano, the US neurologist who had offered an experimental drug therapy, finally accepted an invitation that had been open since Christmas to come to London and see Charlie. He was expected to explain in court the new evidence that he said suggested nucleoside bypass therapy (NBT) could help Charlie.

Instead, the parents’ lawyer stood up to say they were ending their legal fight. He stated that Charlie’s muscle wastage meant it was too late to treat him. *But Hirano, who had not seen Charlie, the scans or the medical notes when he made a first appearance in court on 13 July, *
had been shown new imaging of the brain damage that Great Ormond Street hospital (Gosh) had always said was irreversible.


----------



## Coyote

flacaltenn said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Socialized Medicine Death Panel killed that child.
> 
> 
> 
> No "god" worth following would allow an innocent baby to suffer like this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baby was not "suffering".  What the hell you talking about? The suffering came in 5 MONTHS after the Brit Govt BLOCKED the transfer of this child to the treatment they had selected.
> 
> Govt even PREFERRED he died in April..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't a clue when the suffered started or ended. Only the kid did....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kid wasn't conscious after about April..
Click to expand...

Actually since December I think.


----------



## Coyote

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carter Malone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left has certainly deflected from the only real issue.  People who had the ability to pay for treatment were prohibited from receiving anything but death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was not and is not any "treatment".
> 
> The US doctors were clear that all they could do was extend his time on a respirator.
> 
> Nothing else.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *That wasn't true in January thru April.*. By June/July, it was too late. Had the NHS not sent this court and tied it up and ORDERED CHARLIE TO DIE in April --- THERE WAS a hefty chance of remission. Actually BETTER than many cancer chemo therapies.
> 
> Get your facts straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know there was "hefty chance" of remission?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the process actually REMAKES the mitochrondrial tranfers work in creating NEW tissue. And the researchers were seeing up to 50% REMISSION --- not just halting the disease in tissue that was still viable.
> 
> The low end/high end given in JANUARY was 15% to 50%.. Read the statement of the guy who had his "dead" child saved by this treatment.
> 
> NOBODY is ever "gonna get rich" off of a process that affects such a small percentage. But it's a stepping stone to reaching OTHER gene therapy treatments and THESE Weirder rarer cases could be done completely "gratis"...  Because they now can. OR nearly can... And it helps the learning curve between LAB results and actual human trials.
> 
> BHS is gonna just close the door on all that. Because they don't want the costs of the Labs, researchers and treatments. It's a political/financial motivation..
Click to expand...


Charlie's mutation isn't even the same as that other child. It's also not going to recreate severely damaged brain tissue or Charlie's condition wouldn't have mattered. The child who seems to have showed some very very slight improvement doesnt even have the same mutation.

It has nothing to do with BHS, read the articles.


----------



## Coyote

flacaltenn said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noise noise noise.  NO -- I stand by my answer. A "profit driven" insurance company NEVER prevents personal choices *to choose and fund* alternative treatments..
> 
> You can persist. But you'd just prove the axiom that leftists have no conception of how things actually work..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the right's main mantra is "UK health bad, US health good". The main plank from the righties is that the US health system sucks and this is a prime example. All Jillian - and Joe to an extent - are pointing out, if this was the US system he wouldn't have gotten any treatment either...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RIGHT NOW -- because of govt laziness and incompetence and arrogance --- we're about 1 year short of COMPLETE COLLAPSE of our system..  Good job partisans...  NOT a good time to compare -- is it really?
Click to expand...

Now THAT I will agree with you on...sadly.


----------



## Synthaholic

flacaltenn said:


> Oh hell no.. Single payer *will* OUTLAW doctors performing procedures that are NOT proscribed the way the GOVT WRITES the reimbursements


Oh, really? Please show me the text of this single payer bill, Nostradamus.


----------



## Dr Grump

flacaltenn said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the right's main mantra is "UK health bad, US health good". The main plank from the righties is that the US health system sucks and this is a prime example. All Jillian - and Joe to an extent - are pointing out, if this was the US system he wouldn't have gotten any treatment either...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RIGHT NOW -- because of govt laziness and incompetence and arrogance --- we're about 1 year short of COMPLETE COLLAPSE of our system..  Good job partisans...  NOT a good time to compare -- is it really?
Click to expand...


My bad I meant "is that the UK health system sucks"


----------



## koshergrl

Health Rationing In England: Obese And Smokers Banned From Routine Surgery


----------



## Lucy Hamilton

SassyIrishLass said:


> Bless you little one.
> 
> *Charlie Gard, focus of international legal health battle, dies week before first birthday*
> 
> British baby Charlie Gard, who was at the center of a legal battle that captured the world’s attention, died Friday, one week before his first birthday, UK’s Press Association reports.
> 
> Charlie Gard, focus of international legal health battle, dies week before first birthday



There's another baby now Alfie Evans, they do not know what sickness he has, his parents say that 20 hospitals in America have offered to look at the baby but the British Hospital are saying no and against the parents wishes want to turn off his life support and then he'll of course die.

The difference with Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans is that they do not know what sickness this baby has, they have not been able to give a diagnosis, this makes it more sinister because IF they don't KNOW what is wrong with this baby WHY do they INSIST his life support is ended KNOWING he'll die.





This from July 3rd - parents should NOT have to FIGHT Government funded Hospitals and Doctors to keep their OWN baby alive. Parents have RIGHTS.

Parents want diagnosis for son before they're 'forced to turn life support off'





This from July 31st.

Charlie Gard supporters rally round baby as father faces fight to keep him alive

This from July 31st.

Another Charlie Gard Case?

This is Alfie Evans aged 14 months old.





His parents CrowdFunding website.

Help raise £10000 to Get Alfie Evans a diagnosis and treatment!!  #alfiesarmy #littlebluewarrior #alfieswar #alfiesfight


----------



## Lucy Hamilton

koshergrl said:


> Health Rationing In England: Obese And Smokers Banned From Routine Surgery



The British are letting babies die and against parents wishes wanting and forcing the life support to end. See my latest post about baby Alfie Evans, who has not even been diagnosed so they don't know what sickness he has but the British NHS want him dead.


----------



## Synthaholic

flacaltenn said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't a clue when the suffered started or ended. Only the kid did....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kid wasn't conscious after about April..
Click to expand...

This doesn't gel with what the religious right said during the Terry Schiavo disaster.


----------



## DarkFury

*A lot of folks are getting off point here and mired in shit. The point was this pre paid supposed free medical care for all is truly not for all. A third party decides if you are deserving. Those debating his deserving are no better then the death panel.

The death panel looked at his health and decided he was not worth the money. After the parents secured the money the death panel turned down a billionaire president to show its political power. The debate has nothing to do with would Charlie have lived but why was Charlie forced to die?*


----------



## Lucy Hamilton

Synthaholic said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't a clue when the suffered started or ended. Only the kid did....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kid wasn't conscious after about April..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This doesn't gel with what the religious right said during the Terry Schiavo disaster.
Click to expand...


The British want this baby Alfie Evans to die, his parents are having to FIGHT the British NHS and the Hospital Doctors to KEEP his life support on, the Doctors do not even know what is wrong with this baby, so if they do not know what is wrong with him HOW do they know he can't be saved by treatment if like his parents want to take him to America where his father says 20 Hospitals have offered to look at the baby and see if they can discover what sickness he has.


----------



## Lucy Hamilton

Lucy Hamilton said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bless you little one.
> 
> *Charlie Gard, focus of international legal health battle, dies week before first birthday*
> 
> British baby Charlie Gard, who was at the center of a legal battle that captured the world’s attention, died Friday, one week before his first birthday, UK’s Press Association reports.
> 
> Charlie Gard, focus of international legal health battle, dies week before first birthday
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's another baby now Alfie Evans, they do not know what sickness he has, his parents say that 20 hospitals in America have offered to look at the baby but the British Hospital are saying no and against the parents wishes want to turn off his life support and then he'll of course die.
> 
> The difference with Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans is that they do not know what sickness this baby has, they have not been able to give a diagnosis, this makes it more sinister because IF they don't KNOW what is wrong with this baby WHY do they INSIST his life support is ended KNOWING he'll die.
> 
> View attachment 141612
> 
> This from July 3rd - parents should NOT have to FIGHT Government funded Hospitals and Doctors to keep their OWN baby alive. Parents have RIGHTS.
> 
> Parents want diagnosis for son before they're 'forced to turn life support off'
> 
> View attachment 141613
> 
> This from July 31st.
> 
> Charlie Gard supporters rally round baby as father faces fight to keep him alive
> 
> This from July 31st.
> 
> Another Charlie Gard Case?
> 
> This is Alfie Evans aged 13 months old.
> 
> View attachment 141615
> 
> His parents CrowdFunding website.
> 
> Help raise £10000 to Get Alfie Evans a diagnosis and treatment!!  #alfiesarmy #littlebluewarrior #alfieswar #alfiesfight
Click to expand...














British father seeking US treatment for his ill baby | Daily Mail Online

The baby should be allowed to travel to the hospital in Miami that his father mentions and he says have Alfie Evans details.

The baby is in danger of imminent death from the British NHS who want to kill him and want to go to Court so Judges can give them the okay to kill this baby.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

There's more to this spate of let 'em die.  This is background.   It's to create precedent to prohibit any patient from paying for medical care.


----------



## flacaltenn

Synthaholic said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh hell no.. Single payer *will* OUTLAW doctors performing procedures that are NOT proscribed the way the GOVT WRITES the reimbursements
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, really? Please show me the text of this single payer bill, Nostradamus.
Click to expand...


Single Payer means SINGLE PAYER. All medical tasks will be performed and reimbursed as DICTATED in the reimbursement codes. That's how they stopped me in Medicare from paying an $1000 to an anthesiologist to put my Dad under for a  procedure. If I DID THAT -- none of the other doctors would be reimbursed for that procedure. OR for the prelim visits or follow-ups. AND it's not legal..

No "pay-arounds" in socialized medicine. All the proletariat is the same patient. OTHERWISE, those awful RICH bastards  would be "bribing" doctors at the Brit NHS to move them up MONTHS for a procedure they need to stay alive.. * Couldn't have that.. Could we comrade???*

Learn how things work.  Makes forming opinions a USEFUL past time.. .


----------



## Tommy Tainant

flacaltenn said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh hell no.. Single payer *will* OUTLAW doctors performing procedures that are NOT proscribed the way the GOVT WRITES the reimbursements
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, really? Please show me the text of this single payer bill, Nostradamus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Single Payer means SINGLE PAYER. All medical tasks will be performed and reimbursed as DICTATED in the reimbursement codes. That's how they stopped me in Medicare from paying an $1000 to an anthesiologist to put my Dad under for a  procedure. If I DID THAT -- none of the other doctors would be reimbursed for that procedure. OR for the prelim visits or follow-ups. AND it's not legal..
> 
> No "pay-arounds" in socialized medicine. All the proletariat is the same patient. OTHERWISE, those awful RICH bastards  would be "bribing" doctors at the Brit NHS to move them up MONTHS for a procedure they need to stay alive.. * Couldn't have that.. Could we comrade???*
> 
> Learn how things work.  Makes forming opinions a USEFUL past time.. .
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could take a leaf out of your own book and learn how things work. In the UK you can go private if you have the means. Google Spire Healthcare,they are one of many companies in this field.
And private insurance is available. Some companies provide it as a benefit. I had it myself for several years and had to take a procedure through it because of the terms of my employment. It was called key people cover or similar and meant that you got seen when your employer could spare you.
The thing is though these policies only cover you for standard production line conditions.Anything difficult or long term is not covered because there is no profit in it for the insurers.
So ,contrary to your ghoulish vision, there is choice in the UK. Apart from when you have something bad and then only the state is willing to pick up the tab.  
Th debate that you are having in the US is probably similar to one the rest of the world had 50 or 60 years ago. And it divides like this. On the one side there are people who are doing all right and can afford decent health care.And on the other side there are people who are poor and cant afford it.
The former have all the press and media on their side because of corporate interests. And they manage to rope in some willing idiots who think a public health service is somehow Un American.
But the tide is turning. Better to have sick people treated than another private jet for an insurance boss.


----------



## Death Angel

Tommy Tainant said:


> In the UK you can go private if you have the means


And yet they couldn't.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Death Angel said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the UK you can go private if you have the means
> 
> 
> 
> And yet they couldn't.
Click to expand...

It was never a question of cash. It was about the best outcome for the child. The court stood up for him in a difficult and emotional situation.


----------



## JoeB131

PredFan said:


> No reason except for a political one. They can not tolerate our system possibly being able to help a child that theirs couldn't.



Or they realized that continuing treatments was just plain old cruel.  



Mindful said:


> I still don't understand why the parents were overridden by the judge.
> 
> It couldn't have been about the money, because sufficient funds had been raised to pay for the US trip, and subsequent treatment.



Because as Coyote pointed out, every medical professional who had examined him had determined he had no prognosis for recovery.  It wasn't about the money, it was about the cruelty of continuing treatment to make the parents feel better.


----------



## JoeB131

Tipsycatlover said:


> Stop trying to explain that the best interests of the patient is to die.   That's ridiculous.  Many killers have used that excuse.  It doesn't work.
> 
> Socialized medicine is all about how many people die.  That's success.  It's part of utopian philosophy.   Medical innovation and extending life is prohibited and that is why Charlie Gard died.



Here's the thing... EVERYBODY DIES.  

So when discussing the merits of Socialized medicine vs. Corporate Medicine, let's look at the results.  

The UK has a longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality rates. Yes, you might wait longer to see a doctor, but you will get to see one. 

And re-reading the stuff posted by Coyote, it wasn't like the NHS wasn't spending shitloads of money on Gard, because they were. A case like this he'd have been cut off by his insurance company a long time ago.


----------



## Mindful

*The problem with the NHS? The soft bigotry of low expectations.*

The problem with the NHS? The soft bigotry of low expectations. | Spectator Health


----------



## koshergrl

Tommy Tainant said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the UK you can go private if you have the means
> 
> 
> 
> And yet they couldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was never a question of cash. It was about the best outcome for the child. The court stood up for him in a difficult and emotional situation.
Click to expand...

In other words, you were lying. 
You can't go private, if you have the means. It's about who you know. 

Death panels.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

koshergrl said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the UK you can go private if you have the means
> 
> 
> 
> And yet they couldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was never a question of cash. It was about the best outcome for the child. The court stood up for him in a difficult and emotional situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you were lying.
> You can't go private, if you have the means. It's about who you know.
> 
> Death panels.
Click to expand...

Well I have had a ligament fixed privately because my employers insisted. Maybe I was dreaming it ?


----------



## badger2

Post #421 does not answer the obvious question: did Hirano concede to the MRI images or not? Where in msm does it say that Hirano conceded to the MRI evidence? Even if he did, we are going back to the beginning, to the very first MRI to take a closer look, while post #423 tries to establish a difference-in-mutation argument (eyes rolled back in disbelief). If anything, a fundamental question should be what the MRI did to the mutated RRM2B genes. Cough it up, GOSH: when was the first MRI done on Charlie Gard?


----------



## badger2

Because Vatican's children's hospital figures into the story as part of the select few who were in on the details, It would not be too long after Charlie Gard's MRI that both the Pope and Mike Pence knew Charlie would become poster-child for the capitalist church-and-state French kiss, a sacrifice par excellence for msm limelighters and opportunists.

Cough it up, GOSH: did Charlie Gard receive Sevoflurane for his MRI or not?

What reader has a problem in believing that an anesthesiologist could not be on intimate terms with last-rites pimps and opportunists? GOSH is asking us to believe that the MRI had nothing to do with the exacerbation of Charlie Gard's condition? Horse manure.

Sevoflurane Epileptiform EEG
Predicting perioperative venous thromboembolism in Japanese gynecological patients.  - PubMed - NCBI


----------



## badger2

Correct abstract #:

Sevoflurane Epileptiform EEG
Influence of the sevoflurane concentration on the occurrence of epileptiform EEG patterns.  - PubMed - NCBI


----------



## badger2

Charlie Gard was most likely given sevoflurane. What systerm was in place to ensure that more than one person absolutely knew what the ratio was? Here is a case of sevoflurane's mysterious mechanism of action being used on a rare disease genome. A most suspicious combination, and the administrator of the substance was getting paid to pretend they knew what was going on.


----------



## Coyote

PredFan said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The parents and guardians speak for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. Unless you live in a country with socialized medicine then the government and the courts decide. You belong to them. Your child belongs to them. It's not a difficult truth to grasp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not always.  Sometimes the courts are needed to speak for the voiceless, because what the parents are doing is child abuse.  A child isn't property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In Socialized Medicine, a child is the property of the state. That is blatantly obvious in this case. There was no child abuse, it was exactly the opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not the case here.  It was a case of medical ethics and the child's interests vs the parents.  It has nothing to do with socialized medicine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it does too, just stop already.
> 
> There was no reason those parents were prohibited from using their own funds to pursue help for that child. NONE!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No reason except for a political one. They can not tolerate our system possibly being able to help a child that theirs couldn't.
Click to expand...


That's totally untrue - they reached out to experts on this, and were willing working on getting a compassionate release in order to use experimental therapy like that when the child deteriorated too much.

Why do folks ignore the facts?  Sure there are problems with socialized healthcare but this is not the issue here.


----------



## badger2

We will still question what the MRI did to the RRM2B gene of Charlie Gard. It is not only valid, it is necessary to thwart the overconfidence of medicine in general, especially when it is in copula with the capitalist state and its courts. In this way, the non-law within law can be dealt with in an intelligent, lasting manner for future generations.

A Charlie Gard Page
Ten cases like Charlie Gard’s heard in English courts this year


----------



## badger2

Russell "Bubs" Cruzan III
Michigan baby facing life-threatening disease similar to Charlie Gard's diagnosis


----------



## badger2

We will waste no time in pointing out Russell's temperature connection to Charlie Gard's anaesthesia for MRI. The primitivity of glycine links precisely to the extracellular matrix for malignant hyperthermia.


----------



## badger2

"The domestic courts concluded that it would be lawful for the hospital to withdraw life-sustaining treatment."

Charlie was already a prisoner of the hospital, and could not leave. Beginning with such things as anaesthesia, it cannot be ruled out that it served to exacerbate Charlie's condition. No one in the UK or in this thread can come up with the exact date of Charlie's first MRI? When it comes to the violence of the juridical machine, how many prisoners are there really?


----------



## flacaltenn

Tommy Tainant said:


> It was called key people cover or similar and meant that you got seen when your employer could spare you.
> The thing is though these policies only cover you for standard production line conditions.Anything difficult or long term is not covered because there is no profit in it for the insurers.



This sounds NOTHING "private insurance" available to ANY person. Particularly the Self-Employed. It's some sort of separate "labor related" risk pool...


----------



## Coyote

JoeB131 said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop trying to explain that the best interests of the patient is to die.   That's ridiculous.  Many killers have used that excuse.  It doesn't work.
> 
> Socialized medicine is all about how many people die.  That's success.  It's part of utopian philosophy.   Medical innovation and extending life is prohibited and that is why Charlie Gard died.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing... EVERYBODY DIES.
> 
> So when discussing the merits of Socialized medicine vs. Corporate Medicine, let's look at the results.
> 
> The UK has a longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality rates. Yes, you might wait longer to see a doctor, but you will get to see one.
> 
> And re-reading the stuff posted by Coyote, it wasn't like the NHS wasn't spending shitloads of money on Gard, because they were. A case like this he'd have been cut off by his insurance company a long time ago.
Click to expand...


In fact, there's an American baby with a similar defect, and insurance will not pay for the experimental treatment.  . 4-month-old Michigan baby diagnosed with condition similar to Charlie Gard


----------



## Tommy Tainant

flacaltenn said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was called key people cover or similar and meant that you got seen when your employer could spare you.
> The thing is though these policies only cover you for standard production line conditions.Anything difficult or long term is not covered because there is no profit in it for the insurers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This sounds NOTHING "private insurance" available to ANY person. Particularly the Self-Employed. It's some sort of separate "labor related" risk pool...
Click to expand...

Well it is available to anyone including the self employed. I am self employed now but I choose not to take out a policy. I dont need it. There was nothing labour related about it either. Why dont you do a bit of research, you may be surprised. You need to step away from your ideological hang ups.

 The NHS has looked after me and my family all our lives. We have been blessed.


----------



## PredFan

irosie91 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pain? Distress? You don't know that. We have ways to deal with both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with Charlie was no one could tell.  How would he handle a transatlantic flight and the pressures?  A lot of questions for a treatment that offered almost a nonexistent chance given the degree of damage already done - brain tissue that badly damaged doesn't regenerate for example and that was in January when he began suffering seizures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being in Medicine myself, I've seen brain damages people accomplish amazing things.
> 
> The point is that it wasn't the courts decision to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good point----but being in medicine myself----I would say that even with the various manipulations
> available----this poor kid was not really going to get anywhere but miserable-----sad but true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't say that, you don't know that. The point is still that it isn't the court's decision to make. Or it shouldn't be anyway. Single payer, single decider, and it ain't you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I based my comment about the kid's future on his DIAGNOSIS-----that's what a diagnosis is for---
> it includes a prediction of the future.   sad but true
Click to expand...


It isn't set in stone dumbass. It's an average or a statistic.


----------



## PredFan

Synthaholic said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Socialized Medicine Death Panel killed that child.
> 
> 
> 
> No "god" worth following would allow an innocent baby to suffer like this.
Click to expand...


Meh who gives a fuck about your irrelevant taunts.


----------



## PredFan

JoeB131 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No reason except for a political one. They can not tolerate our system possibly being able to help a child that theirs couldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or they realized that continuing treatments was just plain old cruel.
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still don't understand why the parents were overridden by the judge.
> 
> It couldn't have been about the money, because sufficient funds had been raised to pay for the US trip, and subsequent treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because as Coyote pointed out, every medical professional who had examined him had determined he had no prognosis for recovery.  It wasn't about the money, it was about the cruelty of continuing treatment to make the parents feel better.
Click to expand...


That's just stupid nonsense on your part. There was nothing cruel about it.


----------



## irosie91

PredFan said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with Charlie was no one could tell.  How would he handle a transatlantic flight and the pressures?  A lot of questions for a treatment that offered almost a nonexistent chance given the degree of damage already done - brain tissue that badly damaged doesn't regenerate for example and that was in January when he began suffering seizures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being in Medicine myself, I've seen brain damages people accomplish amazing things.
> 
> The point is that it wasn't the courts decision to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good point----but being in medicine myself----I would say that even with the various manipulations
> available----this poor kid was not really going to get anywhere but miserable-----sad but true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't say that, you don't know that. The point is still that it isn't the court's decision to make. Or it shouldn't be anyway. Single payer, single decider, and it ain't you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I based my comment about the kid's future on his DIAGNOSIS-----that's what a diagnosis is for---
> it includes a prediction of the future.   sad but true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't set in stone dumbass. It's an average or a statistic.
Click to expand...


all of science is a  STATISTIC -----it is possible that if a two ton weight falls on your head that STATISTICALLY it will not damage your brain-------but what are the ODDS?


----------



## PredFan

Coyote said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not always.  Sometimes the courts are needed to speak for the voiceless, because what the parents are doing is child abuse.  A child isn't property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Socialized Medicine, a child is the property of the state. That is blatantly obvious in this case. There was no child abuse, it was exactly the opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not the case here.  It was a case of medical ethics and the child's interests vs the parents.  It has nothing to do with socialized medicine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it does too, just stop already.
> 
> There was no reason those parents were prohibited from using their own funds to pursue help for that child. NONE!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No reason except for a political one. They can not tolerate our system possibly being able to help a child that theirs couldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's totally untrue - they reached out to experts on this, and were willing working on getting a compassionate release in order to use experimental therapy like that when the child deteriorated too much.
> 
> Why do folks ignore the facts?  Sure there are problems with socialized healthcare but this is not the issue here.
Click to expand...


I'm absolutely right. The foctors over here didn't agree that he had deteriorated too far until the end, after the courts took so long to fight the parents. Why did the courts get involved at all? Because in Socialized Medicine the government owns you.And they were not about to let someone go to America, the place that doesn't have socialized medicine and risk the kid surviving.

It's totally political.


----------



## Synthaholic

Lucy Hamilton said:


> The British want this baby Alfie Evans to die


Of, fuck off with that bullshit.


----------



## Synthaholic

flacaltenn said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh hell no.. Single payer *will* OUTLAW doctors performing procedures that are NOT proscribed the way the GOVT WRITES the reimbursements
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, really? Please show me the text of this single payer bill, Nostradamus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Single Payer means SINGLE PAYER. All medical tasks will be performed and reimbursed as DICTATED in the reimbursement codes. That's how they stopped me in Medicare from paying an $1000 to an anthesiologist to put my Dad under for a  procedure. If I DID THAT -- none of the other doctors would be reimbursed for that procedure. OR for the prelim visits or follow-ups. AND it's not legal..
> 
> No "pay-arounds" in socialized medicine. All the proletariat is the same patient. OTHERWISE, those awful RICH bastards  would be "bribing" doctors at the Brit NHS to move them up MONTHS for a procedure they need to stay alive.. * Couldn't have that.. Could we comrade???*
> 
> Learn how things work.  Makes forming opinions a USEFUL past time.. .
Click to expand...

Oh, for fuck sake. No one is going to outlaw private insurance, because that's what all the rich fucks are going to have. It will be like rewards programs: nicer hospital rooms, privacy, more creature comforts, perhaps specialists under contract to certain insurance groups. And to cover things normal insurance doesn't.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Synthaholic said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh hell no.. Single payer *will* OUTLAW doctors performing procedures that are NOT proscribed the way the GOVT WRITES the reimbursements
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, really? Please show me the text of this single payer bill, Nostradamus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Single Payer means SINGLE PAYER. All medical tasks will be performed and reimbursed as DICTATED in the reimbursement codes. That's how they stopped me in Medicare from paying an $1000 to an anthesiologist to put my Dad under for a  procedure. If I DID THAT -- none of the other doctors would be reimbursed for that procedure. OR for the prelim visits or follow-ups. AND it's not legal..
> 
> No "pay-arounds" in socialized medicine. All the proletariat is the same patient. OTHERWISE, those awful RICH bastards  would be "bribing" doctors at the Brit NHS to move them up MONTHS for a procedure they need to stay alive.. * Couldn't have that.. Could we comrade???*
> 
> Learn how things work.  Makes forming opinions a USEFUL past time.. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, for fuck sake. No one is going to outlaw private insurance, because that's what all the rich fucks are going to have. It will be like rewards programs: nicer hospital rooms, privacy, more creature comforts, perhaps specialists under contract to certain insurance groups. And to cover things normal insurance doesn't.
Click to expand...

That's not single payer either.


----------



## Synthaholic

PredFan said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Socialized Medicine Death Panel killed that child.
> 
> 
> 
> No "god" worth following would allow an innocent baby to suffer like this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meh who gives a fuck about your irrelevant taunts.
Click to expand...

Only the people who bother to reply to them.


----------



## Synthaholic

Tipsycatlover said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh hell no.. Single payer *will* OUTLAW doctors performing procedures that are NOT proscribed the way the GOVT WRITES the reimbursements
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, really? Please show me the text of this single payer bill, Nostradamus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Single Payer means SINGLE PAYER. All medical tasks will be performed and reimbursed as DICTATED in the reimbursement codes. That's how they stopped me in Medicare from paying an $1000 to an anthesiologist to put my Dad under for a  procedure. If I DID THAT -- none of the other doctors would be reimbursed for that procedure. OR for the prelim visits or follow-ups. AND it's not legal..
> 
> No "pay-arounds" in socialized medicine. All the proletariat is the same patient. OTHERWISE, those awful RICH bastards  would be "bribing" doctors at the Brit NHS to move them up MONTHS for a procedure they need to stay alive.. * Couldn't have that.. Could we comrade???*
> 
> Learn how things work.  Makes forming opinions a USEFUL past time.. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, for fuck sake. No one is going to outlaw private insurance, because that's what all the rich fucks are going to have. It will be like rewards programs: nicer hospital rooms, privacy, more creature comforts, perhaps specialists under contract to certain insurance groups. And to cover things normal insurance doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not single payer either.
Click to expand...

No, it's supplemental insurance.


----------



## Mindful

Another case in the UK; this time of a small child  with an extremely rare form of cancer, who will be going to the US for treatment, funded by contributions from the community.


----------



## JoeB131

PredFan said:


> That's just stupid nonsense on your part. There was nothing cruel about it.



The child was blind, deaf, paralyzed, had spasms of pain, and was being kept alive on a respirator... that's about as cruel as you get.


----------



## badger2

On the cancer thread, we have already shown that Charlie Gard's potassium channels were being modulated during MRI by the anaesthesia, and that it will be impossible to prove otherwise, by GOSH, by god, by Greyhound, by anyone else. Investigating a negligence trajectory will continue with the fact that the GOSH anaesthesiologist was getting paid to infuse a substance whose mechanism of action was unknown into a patient whose reactive genome due to a rare disease was also unknown.


----------



## Coyote

JoeB131 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's just stupid nonsense on your part. There was nothing cruel about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The child was blind, deaf, paralyzed, had spasms of pain, and was being kept alive on a respirator... that's about as cruel as you get.
Click to expand...


Apparently pain IS an issue in those who suffer mitochondrial diseases...had  no idea: Pain | Mitochondrial Disease Action Committee - MitoAction


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Plenty of conditions and diseases cause pain.  When there is a treatment available we use it.  In socialized medicine the treatment is euthanasia.


----------



## Coyote

Tipsycatlover said:


> Plenty of conditions and diseases cause pain.  When there is a treatment available we use it.  In socialized medicine the treatment is euthanasia.



That's a lie.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Coyote said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of conditions and diseases cause pain.  When there is a treatment available we use it.  In socialized medicine the treatment is euthanasia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
Click to expand...

Tell it to Charlie Gard's parents.


----------



## Coyote

Tipsycatlover said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of conditions and diseases cause pain.  When there is a treatment available we use it.  In socialized medicine the treatment is euthanasia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell it to Charlie Gard's parents.
Click to expand...


It's still a lie.


----------



## badger2

Was not the first MRI done in December?

1.) G.O.S.H. could have known at least as early as 23 Mar 2017 that the anaesthesia directly modulated Charlie Gard's potassium channels.

2.) Charlie Gard's target gene: RRM2B

3.) Pubmed combined keyword search 'rrm2b[AND]potassium' yields no references.


----------



## badger2

The URL may or may not work, but the comparison is for item #33 and the 28th of March:

England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions
www.bailii.org/en/cases/EWHC/Fam/2017/972.html

This is a precious document. There is much pathology embedded within it.


----------



## badger2

Readers can retrieve the document by clicking on reference #3:

Charlie Gard Case
Charlie Gard case - Wikipedia

We note that Charlie's first MRI was performed on 7 Oct 2016. This is the date for the murder of Anna Politkovskaya and for Putin's birthday. Bizarre.


----------



## Synthaholic

JoeB131 said:


> The child was blind, deaf, paralyzed, had spasms of pain


But he sure played a mean pinball.


----------



## flacaltenn

Synthaholic said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh hell no.. Single payer *will* OUTLAW doctors performing procedures that are NOT proscribed the way the GOVT WRITES the reimbursements
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, really? Please show me the text of this single payer bill, Nostradamus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Single Payer means SINGLE PAYER. All medical tasks will be performed and reimbursed as DICTATED in the reimbursement codes. That's how they stopped me in Medicare from paying an $1000 to an anthesiologist to put my Dad under for a  procedure. If I DID THAT -- none of the other doctors would be reimbursed for that procedure. OR for the prelim visits or follow-ups. AND it's not legal..
> 
> No "pay-arounds" in socialized medicine. All the proletariat is the same patient. OTHERWISE, those awful RICH bastards  would be "bribing" doctors at the Brit NHS to move them up MONTHS for a procedure they need to stay alive.. * Couldn't have that.. Could we comrade???*
> 
> Learn how things work.  Makes forming opinions a USEFUL past time.. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, for fuck sake. No one is going to outlaw private insurance, because that's what all the rich fucks are going to have. It will be like rewards programs: nicer hospital rooms, privacy, more creature comforts, perhaps specialists under contract to certain insurance groups. And to cover things normal insurance doesn't.
Click to expand...


Did ObamaCare allow folks to buy INDIVIDUAL PLANS for luxury rooms and gourmet kitchen rights?  You're deluded. NO -- they didn't. They made exemptions for their Union buddies and taxed their "Cadillac plans"..

You cheerlead for this stuff without even an original thought.... 

*PRIVATE PLANS for individuals are OUTLAWED under O-Care. And it's illegal for farmers, plumbers, small biz owners to GROUP into plans... *   You think Single Payer will be more generous???


----------



## SassyIrishLass

*Charlie Gard’s parents give $1.5M in his memory to help other sick kids*

LONDON, England, August 2, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – Charlie Gard's parents will set up a foundation to help sick kids, defend parental rights, and ensure what happened to their son doesn't happen to other families.

Chris Gard and Connie Yates were unable to use the £1.3 million (about $1.5 million USD) they raised to transfer Charlie to the U.S. for experimental treatment. It will instead be used to start the Charlie Gard Foundation, which will help families in similar circumstances.

Charlie Gard’s parents give $1.5M in his memory to help other sick kids


----------



## flacaltenn

JoeB131 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's just stupid nonsense on your part. There was nothing cruel about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The child was blind, deaf, paralyzed, had spasms of pain, and was being kept alive on a respirator... that's about as cruel as you get.
Click to expand...


That's why in DEC and JAN -- the NHS should have ALLOWED treatment. They had no TREATMENT. The USA offered a clinical trial of VERY specialized custom treatment. 

The arrogant Brits decided to FIGHT the treatment option from the get-go.  Took it to court thru APRIL -- when decided to KILL the baby.. 

And THEN the govt allowed this to linger until a "natural death" occurred 3 months later.  

There's no compassion is FIGHTING treatment. NONE at all..


----------



## flacaltenn

Coyote said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's just stupid nonsense on your part. There was nothing cruel about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The child was blind, deaf, paralyzed, had spasms of pain, and was being kept alive on a respirator... that's about as cruel as you get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently pain IS an issue in those who suffer mitochondrial diseases...had  no idea: Pain | Mitochondrial Disease Action Committee - MitoAction
Click to expand...


Nowhere in there is there a discussion of HEAVY sedation with opioids or codeine or inducing comas. THAT is process for TERMINAL pain.. And as your article says -- they err on the side of PREVENTING pain in developing children..


----------



## badger2

Thanks for the post, Sassy. The Charlie Gard Foundation presses on.


----------



## JoeB131

Tipsycatlover said:


> Plenty of conditions and diseases cause pain.  When there is a treatment available we use it.  In socialized medicine the treatment is euthanasia.



Okay, but here was the thing... what kind of pain killers would you use on a ten month old baby that probably wouldn't have killed him?  

The thing was, this child was already dead, only technology was extending his dying... that is what makes this cruel.


----------



## JoeB131

flacaltenn said:


> That's why in DEC and JAN -- the NHS should have ALLOWED treatment. They had no TREATMENT. The USA offered a clinical trial of VERY specialized custom treatment.
> 
> The arrogant Brits decided to FIGHT the treatment option from the get-go. Took it to court thru APRIL -- when decided to KILL the baby..
> 
> And THEN the govt allowed this to linger until a "natural death" occurred 3 months later.
> 
> There's no compassion is FIGHTING treatment. NONE at all..



Except- as Coyote pointed out, the specialist you mention- Dr. Hirano- was consulted and elected not to come to the UK.  

Again, they have Charlie Gard, where they made every effort to save him, compared to Nataline Sarkisyan, where they had a liver ready to go and Cigna wouldn't pay for it.


----------



## flacaltenn

JoeB131 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why in DEC and JAN -- the NHS should have ALLOWED treatment. They had no TREATMENT. The USA offered a clinical trial of VERY specialized custom treatment.
> 
> The arrogant Brits decided to FIGHT the treatment option from the get-go. Took it to court thru APRIL -- when decided to KILL the baby..
> 
> And THEN the govt allowed this to linger until a "natural death" occurred 3 months later.
> 
> There's no compassion is FIGHTING treatment. NONE at all..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except- as Coyote pointed out, the specialist you mention- Dr. Hirano- was consulted and elected not to come to the UK.
> 
> Again, they have Charlie Gard, where they made every effort to save him, compared to Nataline Sarkisyan, where they had a liver ready to go and Cigna wouldn't pay for it.
Click to expand...


There was NO REASON for a high level researcher to become PERSONALLY EMBROILED in an International dispute. He's NOT a patient advocate.

They take people torn to bits and transfer them in HOURS to facilities that specialize in repairing them.  The receiving Physicians have EVERYTHING THEY NEED by elect. communication before the patient arrives.

What Dr Hirano NEEDED -- was the baby patient IN HIS FACILITY to determine the efficacy of treatment. Could not DO THAT by flying to Britain. This is a FACT for most custom Gene Therapies.

You and Coyote and Tommy keep repeating this --- but NONE OF YOU can tell me ---  *WHY Dr Hirano NEEDED to go to Britain...

He can not oversell his therapy. He was not interested in a long contentious debate with the ENTIRE NHS single-handedly.. That's not his "mission"... *


----------



## Coyote

flacaltenn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why in DEC and JAN -- the NHS should have ALLOWED treatment. They had no TREATMENT. The USA offered a clinical trial of VERY specialized custom treatment.
> 
> The arrogant Brits decided to FIGHT the treatment option from the get-go. Took it to court thru APRIL -- when decided to KILL the baby..
> 
> And THEN the govt allowed this to linger until a "natural death" occurred 3 months later.
> 
> There's no compassion is FIGHTING treatment. NONE at all..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except- as Coyote pointed out, the specialist you mention- Dr. Hirano- was consulted and elected not to come to the UK.
> 
> Again, they have Charlie Gard, where they made every effort to save him, compared to Nataline Sarkisyan, where they had a liver ready to go and Cigna wouldn't pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was NO REASON for a high level researcher to become PERSONALLY EMBROILED in an International dispute. He's NOT a patient advocate.
> 
> They take people torn to bits and transfer them in HOURS to facilities that specialize in repairing them.  The receiving Physicians have EVERYTHING THEY NEED by elect. communication before the patient arrives.
> 
> What Dr Hirano NEEDED -- was the baby patient IN HIS FACILITY to determine the efficacy of treatment. Could not DO THAT by flying to Britain. This is a FACT for most custom Gene Therapies.
> 
> You and Coyote and Tommy keep repeating this --- but NONE OF YOU can tell me ---  *WHY Dr Hirano NEEDED to go to Britain...
> 
> He can not oversell his therapy. He was not interested in a long contentious debate with the ENTIRE NHS single-handedly.. That's not his "mission"... *
Click to expand...

By December Charlie had already deteriorated and was undergoing severe seizures indicating bad brain damage as is typical with this disease.  Rather than fly a fragile baby on a lengthy transatlantic flight isn't it better for the doctor to first come and examine the child and his records first? You can do a lot remotely but not everything.  It's only 48 to 72 hours of the doctors time to determine if the treatment was an option.

Also...why did the doctor offering the treatment not even examine the records until much later?


----------



## flacaltenn

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why in DEC and JAN -- the NHS should have ALLOWED treatment. They had no TREATMENT. The USA offered a clinical trial of VERY specialized custom treatment.
> 
> The arrogant Brits decided to FIGHT the treatment option from the get-go. Took it to court thru APRIL -- when decided to KILL the baby..
> 
> And THEN the govt allowed this to linger until a "natural death" occurred 3 months later.
> 
> There's no compassion is FIGHTING treatment. NONE at all..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except- as Coyote pointed out, the specialist you mention- Dr. Hirano- was consulted and elected not to come to the UK.
> 
> Again, they have Charlie Gard, where they made every effort to save him, compared to Nataline Sarkisyan, where they had a liver ready to go and Cigna wouldn't pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was NO REASON for a high level researcher to become PERSONALLY EMBROILED in an International dispute. He's NOT a patient advocate.
> 
> They take people torn to bits and transfer them in HOURS to facilities that specialize in repairing them.  The
> receiving Physicians have EVERYTHING THEY NEED by elect. communication before the patient arrives.
> 
> What Dr Hirano NEEDED -- was the baby patient IN HIS FACILITY to determine the efficacy of treatment. Could not DO THAT by flying to Britain. This is a FACT for most custom Gene Therapies.
> 
> You and Coyote and Tommy keep repeating this --- but NONE OF YOU can tell me ---  *WHY Dr Hirano NEEDED to go to Britain...
> 
> He can not oversell his therapy. He was not interested in a long contentious debate with the ENTIRE NHS single-handedly.. That's not his "mission"... *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By December Charlie had already deteriorated and was undergoing severe seizures indicating bad brain damage as is typical with this disease.  Rather than fly a fragile baby on a lengthy transatlantic flight isn't it better for the doctor to first come and examine the child and his records first? You can do a lot remotely but not everything.  It's only 48 to 72 hours of the doctors time to determine if the treatment was an option.
> 
> Also...why did the doctor offering the treatment not even examine the records until much later?
Click to expand...


The parents GOT the NHS to release ALL pertinent information to Dr. Hirano in January..  Dr. Hirano DID consult with the Brit Doctors in that time frame. This is ALL about the wasted SIX MONTHS of legal proceedings and foot dragging by NHS.  The mom stated in Court on JULY 23rd ----------------

*Articles: Baby Charlie Gard's Parents and Doctors Haggle over Details of His Final Days
*
_*The American and Italian team were still willing to treat Charlie after seeing both his recent brain MRI and EEG performed last week. He's not brain dead (and never has been). He still responds to us, even now, but after reviewing the recent muscle MRI it was considered that Charlie's muscles have deteriorated to the extent that it is largely irreversible and, were treatment to work, his quality of life would now not be one which we would want for our precious little boy. They both agreed that treatment should have been started sooner.
*_
*The callousness of extending this ordeal is ALL ON the NHS.. That's irrefutable. *
_
No -- not medically necessary to examine the child, because the Hospital DID do extensive testing on his condition.
_
NHS is lying if they claim that Dr. Hirano NEVER reviewed clinical records or MRIs. He just hadn't seen the latest MRI indicating the muscle damage. 

With the NHS already pronouncing a death sentence on Charlie in December, there was an argument to be had before ANY researcher is gonna step into this. Obviously, the Amer Doc would not have given the parents hope in December when the Legal proceedings were imminent if he thought Charlie was passed the point of starting treatment. Realize that gene therapy of this type can REVERSE a LOT of existing "damage".  But NOT damage from severe neuropathy or muscle damage caused by waiting too long.

The ONLY tests important to the Doctors involvement could NOT be done remotely.* And the specialist in that case HAS to see the patient in THEIR facility* to determine if they are even a candidate.

This is a case of the Full Power of the Parliament, Crown and NHS being stubborn about being the "ultimate decider" of medical treatment. The system is designed to be inflexible and callous about choices. And no researcher is gonna put himself in a position to be constantly harangued, drawn into court, even mocked to fight with all that.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why in DEC and JAN -- the NHS should have ALLOWED treatment. They had no TREATMENT. The USA offered a clinical trial of VERY specialized custom treatment.
> 
> The arrogant Brits decided to FIGHT the treatment option from the get-go. Took it to court thru APRIL -- when decided to KILL the baby..
> 
> And THEN the govt allowed this to linger until a "natural death" occurred 3 months later.
> 
> There's no compassion is FIGHTING treatment. NONE at all..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except- as Coyote pointed out, the specialist you mention- Dr. Hirano- was consulted and elected not to come to the UK.
> 
> Again, they have Charlie Gard, where they made every effort to save him, compared to Nataline Sarkisyan, where they had a liver ready to go and Cigna wouldn't pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was NO REASON for a high level researcher to become PERSONALLY EMBROILED in an International dispute. He's NOT a patient advocate.
> 
> They take people torn to bits and transfer them in HOURS to facilities that specialize in repairing them.  The receiving Physicians have EVERYTHING THEY NEED by elect. communication before the patient arrives.
> 
> What Dr Hirano NEEDED -- was the baby patient IN HIS FACILITY to determine the efficacy of treatment. Could not DO THAT by flying to Britain. This is a FACT for most custom Gene Therapies.
> 
> You and Coyote and Tommy keep repeating this --- but NONE OF YOU can tell me ---  *WHY Dr Hirano NEEDED to go to Britain...
> 
> He can not oversell his therapy. He was not interested in a long contentious debate with the ENTIRE NHS single-handedly.. That's not his "mission"... *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By December Charlie had already deteriorated and was undergoing severe seizures indicating bad brain damage as is typical with this disease.  Rather than fly a fragile baby on a lengthy transatlantic flight isn't it better for the doctor to first come and examine the child and his records first? You can do a lot remotely but not everything.  It's only 48 to 72 hours of the doctors time to determine if the treatment was an option.
> 
> Also...why did the doctor offering the treatment not even examine the records until much later?
Click to expand...

Doctors do not examine any records unless the patient is about to become their patient.  It serves no purpose to just go over records.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

JoeB131 said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of conditions and diseases cause pain.  When there is a treatment available we use it.  In socialized medicine the treatment is euthanasia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, but here was the thing... what kind of pain killers would you use on a ten month old baby that probably wouldn't have killed him?
> 
> The thing was, this child was already dead, only technology was extending his dying... that is what makes this cruel.
Click to expand...

No.  What makes this cruel is that there was a treatment available.   The family was able to pay for that treatment and their living expenses and the government made the expenditure illegal.  

Deflect all you want.  Drag in any extraneous garbage you want.  Paying for medical care was illegal which is exactly what you get with single payer death panels.


----------



## flacaltenn

This looks very peculiar. It appears the "death cult" in this case goes deeper than just the 6 month legal delay.. Got to talk to my UK buddy and find out WHY Charlie’s legal guardian was Cafcass, the publicly-funded state body which acts in the best interests of children in court cases instead of his PARENTS !!!!

Charlie Gard's parents fury after it emerges the baby's lawyer is head of a charity which backs assisted dying

*'IT'S A CONFLICT OF INTEREST' Charlie Gard’s parents fury as it emerges the baby’s state-appointed lawyer is head of a charity which backs assisted dying
The terminally-ill tot has to be represented by a state-appointed barrister instead of his parents

Victoria Butler-Cole, who represents the 11-month-old in court, is chair of trustees at Compassion in Dying, which was founded by its sister organisation Dignity in Dying.

While it doesn’t campaign for assisted dying itself, the two organisations share the same chief executive and trustees can only sit on the board if they support the other charity’s aims, reports The Telegraph.

Dignity in Dying – formerly called the Voluntary Euthanasia Legalisation Society – founded its sister group 10 years ago to carry out research and provide information to the public about people’s rights.

A source close to Charlie’s parents Connie Yates and Chris Gard said: “The family find it astonishing.

“The implication is obvious. It looks like a profound conflict of interest.”

High Court judge Mr Justice Francis is due to make a decision on the little boy’s fate on July 25.

Mrs Butler-Cole was appointed to the role by Charlie’s legal guardian Cafcass, the publicly-funded state body which acts in the best interests of children in court cases.

Connie Yates and Chris Gard, from Bedfont, in west London, believe that as his parents they should represent Charlie in court.

Mrs Butler-Cole reportedly said she was unable to comment while the High Court case was ongoing.

Compassion in Dying said there was no conflict of interest between Mrs Butler-Cole’s role in court and her view that adults with full mental capacity should be allowed to plan their own death.

***************************

So my question is -- WHY are PARENTS not the "legal guardians" of their children in UK Court Cases? 
Is the UK that FAR OUT of touch with freedom and individual sovereignty??  *


----------



## JoeB131

flacaltenn said:


> You and Coyote and Tommy keep repeating this --- but NONE OF YOU can tell me --- *WHY Dr Hirano NEEDED to go to Britain...*



Because it was easier to put him on a plane than it was to put a child who required elaborate life support equipment on a plane for 10 hours. 



flacaltenn said:


> This looks very peculiar. It appears the "death cult" in this case goes deeper than just the 6 month legal delay.. Got to talk to my UK buddy and find out WHY Charlie’s legal guardian was Cafcass, the publicly-funded state body which acts in the best interests of children in court cases instead of his PARENTS !!!!



Because children aren't property. 

Hey, I feel bad for these parents. I'm sure they are kicking themselves wondering what they did wrong.  But prolonging this child's suffering for months so they can feel better about themselves wasn't the answer. 

It never was.


----------



## PredFan

irosie91 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being in Medicine myself, I've seen brain damages people accomplish amazing things.
> 
> The point is that it wasn't the courts decision to make.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point----but being in medicine myself----I would say that even with the various manipulations
> available----this poor kid was not really going to get anywhere but miserable-----sad but true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't say that, you don't know that. The point is still that it isn't the court's decision to make. Or it shouldn't be anyway. Single payer, single decider, and it ain't you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I based my comment about the kid's future on his DIAGNOSIS-----that's what a diagnosis is for---
> it includes a prediction of the future.   sad but true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't set in stone dumbass. It's an average or a statistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> all of science is a  STATISTIC -----it is possible that if a two ton weight falls on your head that STATISTICALLY it will not damage your brain-------but what are the ODDS?
Click to expand...


That's possibly the stupidest statement I've heard in a long time.


----------



## badger2

G.O.S.H. cannot lie their way out of the sedation issue. Charlie's 7 Oct MRI came before the published report proving precisely where and what the anesthetic bound to in Charlie's body. After the report is made public, there is even more cause for concern.


----------



## irosie91

badger2 said:


> G.O.S.H. cannot lie their way out of the sedation issue. Charlie's 7 Oct MRI came before the published report proving precisely where and what the anesthetic bound to in Charlie's body. After the report is made public, there is even more cause for concern.




???  huh?


----------



## Coyote

Tipsycatlover said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why in DEC and JAN -- the NHS should have ALLOWED treatment. They had no TREATMENT. The USA offered a clinical trial of VERY specialized custom treatment.
> 
> The arrogant Brits decided to FIGHT the treatment option from the get-go. Took it to court thru APRIL -- when decided to KILL the baby..
> 
> And THEN the govt allowed this to linger until a "natural death" occurred 3 months later.
> 
> There's no compassion is FIGHTING treatment. NONE at all..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except- as Coyote pointed out, the specialist you mention- Dr. Hirano- was consulted and elected not to come to the UK.
> 
> Again, they have Charlie Gard, where they made every effort to save him, compared to Nataline Sarkisyan, where they had a liver ready to go and Cigna wouldn't pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was NO REASON for a high level researcher to become PERSONALLY EMBROILED in an International dispute. He's NOT a patient advocate.
> 
> They take people torn to bits and transfer them in HOURS to facilities that specialize in repairing them.  The receiving Physicians have EVERYTHING THEY NEED by elect. communication before the patient arrives.
> 
> What Dr Hirano NEEDED -- was the baby patient IN HIS FACILITY to determine the efficacy of treatment. Could not DO THAT by flying to Britain. This is a FACT for most custom Gene Therapies.
> 
> You and Coyote and Tommy keep repeating this --- but NONE OF YOU can tell me ---  *WHY Dr Hirano NEEDED to go to Britain...
> 
> He can not oversell his therapy. He was not interested in a long contentious debate with the ENTIRE NHS single-handedly.. That's not his "mission"... *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By December Charlie had already deteriorated and was undergoing severe seizures indicating bad brain damage as is typical with this disease.  Rather than fly a fragile baby on a lengthy transatlantic flight isn't it better for the doctor to first come and examine the child and his records first? You can do a lot remotely but not everything.  It's only 48 to 72 hours of the doctors time to determine if the treatment was an option.
> 
> Also...why did the doctor offering the treatment not even examine the records until much later?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doctors do not examine any records unless the patient is about to become their patient.  It serves no purpose to just go over records.
Click to expand...


Specialists examine records all the time if they are called into consultation or considering taking a case.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Coyote said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why in DEC and JAN -- the NHS should have ALLOWED treatment. They had no TREATMENT. The USA offered a clinical trial of VERY specialized custom treatment.
> 
> The arrogant Brits decided to FIGHT the treatment option from the get-go. Took it to court thru APRIL -- when decided to KILL the baby..
> 
> And THEN the govt allowed this to linger until a "natural death" occurred 3 months later.
> 
> There's no compassion is FIGHTING treatment. NONE at all..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except- as Coyote pointed out, the specialist you mention- Dr. Hirano- was consulted and elected not to come to the UK.
> 
> Again, they have Charlie Gard, where they made every effort to save him, compared to Nataline Sarkisyan, where they had a liver ready to go and Cigna wouldn't pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was NO REASON for a high level researcher to become PERSONALLY EMBROILED in an International dispute. He's NOT a patient advocate.
> 
> They take people torn to bits and transfer them in HOURS to facilities that specialize in repairing them.  The receiving Physicians have EVERYTHING THEY NEED by elect. communication before the patient arrives.
> 
> What Dr Hirano NEEDED -- was the baby patient IN HIS FACILITY to determine the efficacy of treatment. Could not DO THAT by flying to Britain. This is a FACT for most custom Gene Therapies.
> 
> You and Coyote and Tommy keep repeating this --- but NONE OF YOU can tell me ---  *WHY Dr Hirano NEEDED to go to Britain...
> 
> He can not oversell his therapy. He was not interested in a long contentious debate with the ENTIRE NHS single-handedly.. That's not his "mission"... *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By December Charlie had already deteriorated and was undergoing severe seizures indicating bad brain damage as is typical with this disease.  Rather than fly a fragile baby on a lengthy transatlantic flight isn't it better for the doctor to first come and examine the child and his records first? You can do a lot remotely but not everything.  It's only 48 to 72 hours of the doctors time to determine if the treatment was an option.
> 
> Also...why did the doctor offering the treatment not even examine the records until much later?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doctors do not examine any records unless the patient is about to become their patient.  It serves no purpose to just go over records.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Specialists examine records all the time if they are called into consultation or considering taking a case.
Click to expand...

Not until they know that they are taking the case.


----------



## Coyote

There is the implication that GOSH is substandard and knows less than outside specialists is wrong.  GOSH is one of the most respected and well-known children's hospital in the world.  It's world class and has research facilities for mitochondrial disorders.  Like many specialists faced with a patient with a rare and terminal illness - they consult with other specialists and researchers in that field.

Yet it has been the subject of vile attacks over this case that are unwarrented.  This article makes some good points and asks hard questions (that don't have right or wrong answers).

Charlie Gard: A case that changed everything? - BBC News
*The tarnishing of a famous hospital*
_Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) is perhaps the most respected and well-known children's hospital in the world. It has been synonymous with excellence ever since it was founded in the 1850s with patients from all over the world now being sent there for pioneering treatment.

And yet in the course of this case it found itself under attack with some staff reporting they had been victims of "vile" abuse and threats (Charlie's parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, also reported that they had been the target of abuse on a daily basis.)

*One of the problems the hospital faced, particularly as the case developed and the parents received more media attention, was that it simply could not win. *

*While Charlie's parents gave television and newspaper interviews and made pleas on social media, GOSH was left to rely on media statements and court papers to explain its position*. The hospital said it was not possible to give Charlie the non-invasive treatment - a powder that could be added to his food - that his parents felt could help him in his battle with mitochondrial depletion syndrome, a condition which causes progressive muscle weakness and brain damage.

*Rational, scientific logic was never going to win hearts and minds against the raw emotion of parents trying to do everything they could for the severely ill baby*.

Should more have been done by the world of medicine? As the case developed, GOSH started publishing more details about the case and its position. 

But Prof Uta Frith, an expert in cognitive development at University College London, wonders if there is a lesson here, *arguing science cannot be entirely stripped of its emotional context.*

"We can never be 100% certain about our facts and theories. Emotion, which is utterly certain, wins in comparison. 

"However, scientific reasoning cannot be completely stripped of emotion. Perhaps this is an asset we need to cultivate more. Reasoned evidence needs champions to engage the hearts of people."

But the case - and its importance - also comes down to a dilemma that becomes more acute as medicine develops. *At what point is it appropriate not to treat patients and allow them to die?*

These are discussions that go on every day in hospitals - and the overwhelming majority are resolved without major dispute. 

Patients coming to the end of life - both the elderly and the young - are now routinely encouraged to discuss advanced care plans setting out how much they want doctors to do when they get closer to death. These plans cover everything from when it is appropriate to resuscitate to when treatment should be withdrawn and a patient moved on to palliative care to help them die with dignity.

Of course in Charlie's case, because he was a baby, this was simply not possible. Instead, he was kept alive on a ventilator while his parents and doctors took to the courts.

The medical profession - bound by the basic tenet of medicine "do no harm" - felt it was in his best interests to let him die with dignity rather than have an experimental treatment that they believed would do him no good. In court they argued he had "no quality of life and no real prospect of any quality of life".

*But there is also an ethical dimension to this. Are doctors the right people to determine what constitutes "quality of life"? Do we put too much emphasis on their opinion?*_​

AND - Parents rights vs the child's - it comes down to a 1989 law designed to protect children. Not socialized medicine - *a law designed to prevent child abuse.*

*The rights of parents*
But that brings us on to one of the key arguments put forward by Charlie's parents during the hours of legal discussion - the rights of parents to make decisions for their children.

They believed it should have been up to them to decide what was best for their son. But this is not what the law says.

*The 1989 Children's Act, which was introduced following a child abuse scandal in Cleveland, makes it clear that where a child is at risk of harm the state can and should intervene.*

Subsequent legislation has followed and *a framework has been created whereby the state has been emboldened to challenge the view of parents where they believe children's best interests are not being served.*

This sees doctors oppose the decision of parents who are Jehovah's Witnesses and refuse blood transfusions for their children.

The law is also used by councils to take children they believe are at risk into care.

Of course, proving someone is at risk or can be helped by medical treatment is much easier to do than proving a treatment is no longer in the best interests of a child when the parents disagree.

*But what was often overlooked in the Charlie Gard case was that it wasn't just the doctors against the parents. Charlie also had an independent guardian who agreed with the hospital.*

Daniel Sokol, a medical ethicist and barrister, says the case has shone a light on this issue. *"It reminds us that the rights of parents over their children are not absolute. They are limited by what is in the best interests of the child."*

But he says it is interesting that in the US, which played such a key role through the intervention of doctors who said they would be prepared to treat Charlie, and because of President Donald Trump's offer of help, the rights of parents to decide what is best are much more enshrined.

*"The wishes of parents and 'surrogates' generally carry more weight, which is why many US commentators have expressed surprise at the hospital's handling of this case," he says. 

"For them, the doctors should do what the parents want."*​

It's a complex ethical situation imo.


----------



## Coyote

Tipsycatlover said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except- as Coyote pointed out, the specialist you mention- Dr. Hirano- was consulted and elected not to come to the UK.
> 
> Again, they have Charlie Gard, where they made every effort to save him, compared to Nataline Sarkisyan, where they had a liver ready to go and Cigna wouldn't pay for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was NO REASON for a high level researcher to become PERSONALLY EMBROILED in an International dispute. He's NOT a patient advocate.
> 
> They take people torn to bits and transfer them in HOURS to facilities that specialize in repairing them.  The receiving Physicians have EVERYTHING THEY NEED by elect. communication before the patient arrives.
> 
> What Dr Hirano NEEDED -- was the baby patient IN HIS FACILITY to determine the efficacy of treatment. Could not DO THAT by flying to Britain. This is a FACT for most custom Gene Therapies.
> 
> You and Coyote and Tommy keep repeating this --- but NONE OF YOU can tell me ---  *WHY Dr Hirano NEEDED to go to Britain...
> 
> He can not oversell his therapy. He was not interested in a long contentious debate with the ENTIRE NHS single-handedly.. That's not his "mission"... *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By December Charlie had already deteriorated and was undergoing severe seizures indicating bad brain damage as is typical with this disease.  Rather than fly a fragile baby on a lengthy transatlantic flight isn't it better for the doctor to first come and examine the child and his records first? You can do a lot remotely but not everything.  It's only 48 to 72 hours of the doctors time to determine if the treatment was an option.
> 
> Also...why did the doctor offering the treatment not even examine the records until much later?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doctors do not examine any records unless the patient is about to become their patient.  It serves no purpose to just go over records.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Specialists examine records all the time if they are called into consultation or considering taking a case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not until they know that they are taking the case.
Click to expand...


I doubt that.  No reasonable doctor would take a case without first looking at the records to see what the facts of the case are.  When we get referrals to specialists, for example, quite often records are sent ahead of the appointment.  Same with consults among doctors.


----------



## irosie91

PredFan said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> all of science is a  STATISTIC -----it is possible that if a two ton weight falls on your head that STATISTICALLY it will not damage your brain-------but what are the ODDS?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's possibly the stupidest statement I've heard in a long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you  "HEARD" it?     how long has this messageboard been TALKING TO YOU?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to one-up your stupid statement with a childish statement? Interesting strategy but it fell short I'm afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> actually there was nothing stupid about my statement-----it is something I learned from my older brother--LONG AGO-----he is a Professor of astrophysics-----much acclaimed and,  in fact,  a recipient of the president's  Freedom award for his contributions to the field of Astrophysics and NASA------and you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, either you are a liar, or your brother is an idiot. Statistics is part of science but it isn't all of science. That's just stupid. I don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that fact.
Click to expand...


actually----you are wrong and he is right.    -----statistical analysis rules every branch of science-----and CERTAINLY ASTROPHYSICS------and psychiatrists are stuck with it----not easy for them


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Once the doctor knows the patient will be their patient they will look at the records.  

No doctor was called in as a consulting doctor for Charlie Gard so the mention is specious. 

There is only one issue and it is not whether any doctor should have reviewed the records.

The sole issue is that these people could pay for medical care and was legally prohibited from receiving that care.  That's it.  

Today Charlie Gard, tomorrow it's grandma with a broken hip and money in the bank.  Once the government says no medical care, even if you could pay, you die and that's just the way the government wants it.


----------



## irosie91

as to  Charlie-----the available dietary manipulations useful in mitochondrial DNA issues-----is
supposed to AMELIORATE  the damage caused by -----as far as I understand----the "toxic"  products
of catabolism------the treatment is NOTHING DRAMATIC -----or INVASIVE -----I can fathom NO 
REASON TO DENY THEM TO THE SICK KID------parents with dying children seek anything
that seems like life -----if the baby would just GURGLE----seem responsive----it would help ----them.
Not a bad thing.    There is no evidence that I know of that suggests that the baby was 'suffering'


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Coyote said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was NO REASON for a high level researcher to become PERSONALLY EMBROILED in an International dispute. He's NOT a patient advocate.
> 
> They take people torn to bits and transfer them in HOURS to facilities that specialize in repairing them.  The receiving Physicians have EVERYTHING THEY NEED by elect. communication before the patient arrives.
> 
> What Dr Hirano NEEDED -- was the baby patient IN HIS FACILITY to determine the efficacy of treatment. Could not DO THAT by flying to Britain. This is a FACT for most custom Gene Therapies.
> 
> You and Coyote and Tommy keep repeating this --- but NONE OF YOU can tell me ---  *WHY Dr Hirano NEEDED to go to Britain...
> 
> He can not oversell his therapy. He was not interested in a long contentious debate with the ENTIRE NHS single-handedly.. That's not his "mission"... *
> 
> 
> 
> By December Charlie had already deteriorated and was undergoing severe seizures indicating bad brain damage as is typical with this disease.  Rather than fly a fragile baby on a lengthy transatlantic flight isn't it better for the doctor to first come and examine the child and his records first? You can do a lot remotely but not everything.  It's only 48 to 72 hours of the doctors time to determine if the treatment was an option.
> 
> Also...why did the doctor offering the treatment not even examine the records until much later?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doctors do not examine any records unless the patient is about to become their patient.  It serves no purpose to just go over records.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Specialists examine records all the time if they are called into consultation or considering taking a case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not until they know that they are taking the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt that.  No reasonable doctor would take a case without first looking at the records to see what the facts of the case are.  When we get referrals to specialists, for example, quite often records are sent ahead of the appointment.  Same with consults among doctors.
Click to expand...

When my ankle was reconstructed there was a case conference with specialists from several hospitals. They used that skype thing. I felt quite special. 
I do think that you are wasting your time trying to educate these people. They know what they know and are impervious to anything that runs counter to that.
It has nothing to do with poor Charlie Gard either.


----------



## badger2

Did Charlie Gard receive anesthesia or not, and for which MRI?


----------



## flacaltenn

JoeB131 said:


> Because children aren't property.



EVIDENTLY children are property of the STATE in the UK.  That's one Clinton "Village" I would FLEE from. Not only were Charlies parents not in the Guardian position with regards to his health care, but STATE APPARENTLY takes the Guardian position in any LEGAL trials. 

Is THAT the "Village" -- you leftists want to create here?  Good damn luck with that.


----------



## Coyote

Tipsycatlover said:


> Once the doctor knows the patient will be their patient they will look at the records.
> 
> *No doctor was called in as a consulting doctor for Charlie Gard so the mention is specious. *
> 
> There is only one issue and it is not whether any doctor should have reviewed the records.
> 
> The sole issue is that these people could pay for medical care and was legally prohibited from receiving that care.  That's it.
> 
> Today Charlie Gard, tomorrow it's grandma with a broken hip and money in the bank.  Once the government says no medical care, even if you could pay, you die and that's just the way the government wants it.



Except that isn't true.  And Britain has had some form of NHS since about 1948.  Grandma still gets her broken hip fixed, and those with money can seek treatment outside of the system.


----------



## badger2

It can't lie. It has to document if anesthesia was used. Any anesthesia used before 23 March 2017 is a different anesthesia, because GOSH can't claim to have known about azisevoflurane until then. This does not mean that GOSH could not have secretly known about it before publication. It's not a little matter, because azisevoflurane profoundly answers questions as to the mechanism of action of sevoflurane, which would be the likely agent used on Charlie Gard. Until 23 March 2017, anesthesiologists were only pretending to know what it does. Cough up the records, GOSH.


----------



## flacaltenn

Coyote said:


> There is the implication that GOSH is substandard and knows less than outside specialists is wrong.  GOSH is one of the most respected and well-known children's hospital in the world.  It's world class and has research facilities for mitochondrial disorders.  Like many specialists faced with a patient with a rare and terminal illness - they consult with other specialists and researchers in that field.
> 
> Yet it has been the subject of vile attacks over this case that are unwarrented.  This article makes some good points and asks hard questions (that don't have right or wrong answers).
> 
> Charlie Gard: A case that changed everything? - BBC News
> *The tarnishing of a famous hospital*
> _Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) is perhaps the most respected and well-known children's hospital in the world. It has been synonymous with excellence ever since it was founded in the 1850s with patients from all over the world now being sent there for pioneering treatment.
> 
> And yet in the course of this case it found itself under attack with some staff reporting they had been victims of "vile" abuse and threats (Charlie's parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, also reported that they had been the target of abuse on a daily basis.)
> 
> *One of the problems the hospital faced, particularly as the case developed and the parents received more media attention, was that it simply could not win. *
> 
> *While Charlie's parents gave television and newspaper interviews and made pleas on social media, GOSH was left to rely on media statements and court papers to explain its position*. The hospital said it was not possible to give Charlie the non-invasive treatment - a powder that could be added to his food - that his parents felt could help him in his battle with mitochondrial depletion syndrome, a condition which causes progressive muscle weakness and brain damage.
> 
> *Rational, scientific logic was never going to win hearts and minds against the raw emotion of parents trying to do everything they could for the severely ill baby*.
> 
> Should more have been done by the world of medicine? As the case developed, GOSH started publishing more details about the case and its position.
> 
> But Prof Uta Frith, an expert in cognitive development at University College London, wonders if there is a lesson here, *arguing science cannot be entirely stripped of its emotional context.*
> 
> "We can never be 100% certain about our facts and theories. Emotion, which is utterly certain, wins in comparison.
> 
> "However, scientific reasoning cannot be completely stripped of emotion. Perhaps this is an asset we need to cultivate more. Reasoned evidence needs champions to engage the hearts of people."
> 
> But the case - and its importance - also comes down to a dilemma that becomes more acute as medicine develops. *At what point is it appropriate not to treat patients and allow them to die?*
> 
> These are discussions that go on every day in hospitals - and the overwhelming majority are resolved without major dispute.
> 
> Patients coming to the end of life - both the elderly and the young - are now routinely encouraged to discuss advanced care plans setting out how much they want doctors to do when they get closer to death. These plans cover everything from when it is appropriate to resuscitate to when treatment should be withdrawn and a patient moved on to palliative care to help them die with dignity.
> 
> Of course in Charlie's case, because he was a baby, this was simply not possible. Instead, he was kept alive on a ventilator while his parents and doctors took to the courts.
> 
> The medical profession - bound by the basic tenet of medicine "do no harm" - felt it was in his best interests to let him die with dignity rather than have an experimental treatment that they believed would do him no good. In court they argued he had "no quality of life and no real prospect of any quality of life".
> 
> *But there is also an ethical dimension to this. Are doctors the right people to determine what constitutes "quality of life"? Do we put too much emphasis on their opinion?*_​
> 
> AND - Parents rights vs the child's - it comes down to a 1989 law designed to protect children. Not socialized medicine - *a law designed to prevent child abuse.*
> 
> *The rights of parents*
> But that brings us on to one of the key arguments put forward by Charlie's parents during the hours of legal discussion - the rights of parents to make decisions for their children.
> 
> They believed it should have been up to them to decide what was best for their son. But this is not what the law says.
> 
> *The 1989 Children's Act, which was introduced following a child abuse scandal in Cleveland, makes it clear that where a child is at risk of harm the state can and should intervene.*
> 
> Subsequent legislation has followed and *a framework has been created whereby the state has been emboldened to challenge the view of parents where they believe children's best interests are not being served.*
> 
> This sees doctors oppose the decision of parents who are Jehovah's Witnesses and refuse blood transfusions for their children.
> 
> The law is also used by councils to take children they believe are at risk into care.
> 
> Of course, proving someone is at risk or can be helped by medical treatment is much easier to do than proving a treatment is no longer in the best interests of a child when the parents disagree.
> 
> *But what was often overlooked in the Charlie Gard case was that it wasn't just the doctors against the parents. Charlie also had an independent guardian who agreed with the hospital.*
> 
> Daniel Sokol, a medical ethicist and barrister, says the case has shone a light on this issue. *"It reminds us that the rights of parents over their children are not absolute. They are limited by what is in the best interests of the child."*
> 
> But he says it is interesting that in the US, which played such a key role through the intervention of doctors who said they would be prepared to treat Charlie, and because of President Donald Trump's offer of help, the rights of parents to decide what is best are much more enshrined.
> 
> *"The wishes of parents and 'surrogates' generally carry more weight, which is why many US commentators have expressed surprise at the hospital's handling of this case," he says.
> 
> "For them, the doctors should do what the parents want."*​
> 
> It's a complex ethical situation imo.




Waste of time. NOBODY is attacking the Hospital. Not EVEN the Parents. The problem lies in the callousness and arrogance of a system that BLOCKS and prolongs an effort to attempt alternate treatment against the WILL of the baby's parents. 

Oh WOW -- AN INDEPENDENT -- state appointed Guardian AGREEING with the State. Imagine that. Imagine how happy you'd be in the Soviet Union or East Germany..


----------



## flacaltenn

Coyote said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once the doctor knows the patient will be their patient they will look at the records.
> 
> *No doctor was called in as a consulting doctor for Charlie Gard so the mention is specious. *
> 
> There is only one issue and it is not whether any doctor should have reviewed the records.
> 
> The sole issue is that these people could pay for medical care and was legally prohibited from receiving that care.  That's it.
> 
> Today Charlie Gard, tomorrow it's grandma with a broken hip and money in the bank.  Once the government says no medical care, even if you could pay, you die and that's just the way the government wants it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that isn't true.  And Britain has had some form of NHS since about 1948.  Grandma still gets her broken hip fixed, and those with money can seek treatment outside of the system.
Click to expand...


Evidently NOT.  Because Charlie's parents  RAISED the money and would have gotten LOTS of help on Life Flights and things like that. So OBVIOUSLY, even with the MONEY -- *the State OWNED that child*. That's the outrage. Evidently -- you're immune from obvious and want to defend the indefensible any way that you can..


----------



## Coyote

flacaltenn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because children aren't property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EVIDENTLY children are property of the STATE in the UK.  That's one Clinton "Village" I would FLEE from. Not only were Charlies parents not in the Guardian position with regards to his health care, but STATE APPARENTLY takes the Guardian position in any LEGAL trials.
> 
> Is THAT the "Village" -- you leftists want to create here?  Good damn luck with that.
Click to expand...


Let me ask you the same question I asked others but never really got an answer.

The crux of the debate is "rights" - who has the right to make decisions for a child, the parents, the legal system, the medical community and how far do those rights go?  

When it involves a child's life, it's even more heartwrenching because no child should have to die, it's just so wrong.  

The US and Britain both have laws that attempt to guarantee that the child's RIGHTS and best interests are considered in complicated ethics cases.  I can understand that, though I can agree that it can go too far in some cases and not far enough in others.  The US law is much weaker - parents rights are given a great deal more power.  Huge exemptions are carved out for "religious rights" and those exemptions can and have lead to de facto abuse.  A child isn't property of the state.  But neither is it property of the parents.  A child has rights and if the parents fail to look after the child's rights - who does?  That's when the "Village" becomes necessary.

The question I have is - how far can parents go in seeking to sustain life or advocating an alternative treatment?  When does it become child abuse even if unintentional?


----------



## Coyote

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is the implication that GOSH is substandard and knows less than outside specialists is wrong.  GOSH is one of the most respected and well-known children's hospital in the world.  It's world class and has research facilities for mitochondrial disorders.  Like many specialists faced with a patient with a rare and terminal illness - they consult with other specialists and researchers in that field.
> 
> Yet it has been the subject of vile attacks over this case that are unwarrented.  This article makes some good points and asks hard questions (that don't have right or wrong answers).
> 
> Charlie Gard: A case that changed everything? - BBC News
> *The tarnishing of a famous hospital*
> _Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) is perhaps the most respected and well-known children's hospital in the world. It has been synonymous with excellence ever since it was founded in the 1850s with patients from all over the world now being sent there for pioneering treatment.
> 
> And yet in the course of this case it found itself under attack with some staff reporting they had been victims of "vile" abuse and threats (Charlie's parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, also reported that they had been the target of abuse on a daily basis.)
> 
> *One of the problems the hospital faced, particularly as the case developed and the parents received more media attention, was that it simply could not win. *
> 
> *While Charlie's parents gave television and newspaper interviews and made pleas on social media, GOSH was left to rely on media statements and court papers to explain its position*. The hospital said it was not possible to give Charlie the non-invasive treatment - a powder that could be added to his food - that his parents felt could help him in his battle with mitochondrial depletion syndrome, a condition which causes progressive muscle weakness and brain damage.
> 
> *Rational, scientific logic was never going to win hearts and minds against the raw emotion of parents trying to do everything they could for the severely ill baby*.
> 
> Should more have been done by the world of medicine? As the case developed, GOSH started publishing more details about the case and its position.
> 
> But Prof Uta Frith, an expert in cognitive development at University College London, wonders if there is a lesson here, *arguing science cannot be entirely stripped of its emotional context.*
> 
> "We can never be 100% certain about our facts and theories. Emotion, which is utterly certain, wins in comparison.
> 
> "However, scientific reasoning cannot be completely stripped of emotion. Perhaps this is an asset we need to cultivate more. Reasoned evidence needs champions to engage the hearts of people."
> 
> But the case - and its importance - also comes down to a dilemma that becomes more acute as medicine develops. *At what point is it appropriate not to treat patients and allow them to die?*
> 
> These are discussions that go on every day in hospitals - and the overwhelming majority are resolved without major dispute.
> 
> Patients coming to the end of life - both the elderly and the young - are now routinely encouraged to discuss advanced care plans setting out how much they want doctors to do when they get closer to death. These plans cover everything from when it is appropriate to resuscitate to when treatment should be withdrawn and a patient moved on to palliative care to help them die with dignity.
> 
> Of course in Charlie's case, because he was a baby, this was simply not possible. Instead, he was kept alive on a ventilator while his parents and doctors took to the courts.
> 
> The medical profession - bound by the basic tenet of medicine "do no harm" - felt it was in his best interests to let him die with dignity rather than have an experimental treatment that they believed would do him no good. In court they argued he had "no quality of life and no real prospect of any quality of life".
> 
> *But there is also an ethical dimension to this. Are doctors the right people to determine what constitutes "quality of life"? Do we put too much emphasis on their opinion?*_​
> 
> AND - Parents rights vs the child's - it comes down to a 1989 law designed to protect children. Not socialized medicine - *a law designed to prevent child abuse.*
> 
> *The rights of parents*
> But that brings us on to one of the key arguments put forward by Charlie's parents during the hours of legal discussion - the rights of parents to make decisions for their children.
> 
> They believed it should have been up to them to decide what was best for their son. But this is not what the law says.
> 
> *The 1989 Children's Act, which was introduced following a child abuse scandal in Cleveland, makes it clear that where a child is at risk of harm the state can and should intervene.*
> 
> Subsequent legislation has followed and *a framework has been created whereby the state has been emboldened to challenge the view of parents where they believe children's best interests are not being served.*
> 
> This sees doctors oppose the decision of parents who are Jehovah's Witnesses and refuse blood transfusions for their children.
> 
> The law is also used by councils to take children they believe are at risk into care.
> 
> Of course, proving someone is at risk or can be helped by medical treatment is much easier to do than proving a treatment is no longer in the best interests of a child when the parents disagree.
> 
> *But what was often overlooked in the Charlie Gard case was that it wasn't just the doctors against the parents. Charlie also had an independent guardian who agreed with the hospital.*
> 
> Daniel Sokol, a medical ethicist and barrister, says the case has shone a light on this issue. *"It reminds us that the rights of parents over their children are not absolute. They are limited by what is in the best interests of the child."*
> 
> But he says it is interesting that in the US, which played such a key role through the intervention of doctors who said they would be prepared to treat Charlie, and because of President Donald Trump's offer of help, the rights of parents to decide what is best are much more enshrined.
> 
> *"The wishes of parents and 'surrogates' generally carry more weight, which is why many US commentators have expressed surprise at the hospital's handling of this case," he says.
> 
> "For them, the doctors should do what the parents want."*​
> 
> It's a complex ethical situation imo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waste of time. NOBODY is attacking the Hospital. Not EVEN the Parents. The problem lies in the callousness and arrogance of a system that BLOCKS and prolongs an effort to attempt alternate treatment against the WILL of the baby's parents.
> 
> Oh WOW -- AN INDEPENDENT -- state appointed Guardian AGREEING with the State. Imagine that. Imagine how happy you'd be in the Soviet Union or East Germany..
Click to expand...


Yes they are.  The hospital and staff have recieved threats, even death threats.


----------



## Coyote

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once the doctor knows the patient will be their patient they will look at the records.
> 
> *No doctor was called in as a consulting doctor for Charlie Gard so the mention is specious. *
> 
> There is only one issue and it is not whether any doctor should have reviewed the records.
> 
> The sole issue is that these people could pay for medical care and was legally prohibited from receiving that care.  That's it.
> 
> Today Charlie Gard, tomorrow it's grandma with a broken hip and money in the bank.  Once the government says no medical care, even if you could pay, you die and that's just the way the government wants it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that isn't true.  And Britain has had some form of NHS since about 1948.  Grandma still gets her broken hip fixed, and those with money can seek treatment outside of the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidently NOT.  Because Charlie's parents  RAISED the money and would have gotten LOTS of help on Life Flights and things like that. So OBVIOUSLY, even with the MONEY -- *the State OWNED that child*. That's the outrage. Evidently -- you're immune from obvious and want to defend the indefensible any way that you can..
Click to expand...


No, I'm not defending the indefensible.

You're trying to make this something it's not.

Parents do not OWN a child either.

So...who's right in these cases - the parents or "the state" who intervened on the child's behalf?
Judge rules family can't refuse chemo for boy
The sad saga of an Amish girl with a curable cancer whose parents are refusing chemotherapy in favor of “natural healing”
She Had a 'Grapefruit-Sized Tumor' on Her Shoulder. Her Mom Chose Prayer Over the E.R.


----------



## Coyote

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is the implication that GOSH is substandard and knows less than outside specialists is wrong.  GOSH is one of the most respected and well-known children's hospital in the world.  It's world class and has research facilities for mitochondrial disorders.  Like many specialists faced with a patient with a rare and terminal illness - they consult with other specialists and researchers in that field.
> 
> Yet it has been the subject of vile attacks over this case that are unwarrented.  This article makes some good points and asks hard questions (that don't have right or wrong answers).
> 
> Charlie Gard: A case that changed everything? - BBC News
> *The tarnishing of a famous hospital*
> _Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) is perhaps the most respected and well-known children's hospital in the world. It has been synonymous with excellence ever since it was founded in the 1850s with patients from all over the world now being sent there for pioneering treatment.
> 
> And yet in the course of this case it found itself under attack with some staff reporting they had been victims of "vile" abuse and threats (Charlie's parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, also reported that they had been the target of abuse on a daily basis.)
> 
> *One of the problems the hospital faced, particularly as the case developed and the parents received more media attention, was that it simply could not win. *
> 
> *While Charlie's parents gave television and newspaper interviews and made pleas on social media, GOSH was left to rely on media statements and court papers to explain its position*. The hospital said it was not possible to give Charlie the non-invasive treatment - a powder that could be added to his food - that his parents felt could help him in his battle with mitochondrial depletion syndrome, a condition which causes progressive muscle weakness and brain damage.
> 
> *Rational, scientific logic was never going to win hearts and minds against the raw emotion of parents trying to do everything they could for the severely ill baby*.
> 
> Should more have been done by the world of medicine? As the case developed, GOSH started publishing more details about the case and its position.
> 
> But Prof Uta Frith, an expert in cognitive development at University College London, wonders if there is a lesson here, *arguing science cannot be entirely stripped of its emotional context.*
> 
> "We can never be 100% certain about our facts and theories. Emotion, which is utterly certain, wins in comparison.
> 
> "However, scientific reasoning cannot be completely stripped of emotion. Perhaps this is an asset we need to cultivate more. Reasoned evidence needs champions to engage the hearts of people."
> 
> But the case - and its importance - also comes down to a dilemma that becomes more acute as medicine develops. *At what point is it appropriate not to treat patients and allow them to die?*
> 
> These are discussions that go on every day in hospitals - and the overwhelming majority are resolved without major dispute.
> 
> Patients coming to the end of life - both the elderly and the young - are now routinely encouraged to discuss advanced care plans setting out how much they want doctors to do when they get closer to death. These plans cover everything from when it is appropriate to resuscitate to when treatment should be withdrawn and a patient moved on to palliative care to help them die with dignity.
> 
> Of course in Charlie's case, because he was a baby, this was simply not possible. Instead, he was kept alive on a ventilator while his parents and doctors took to the courts.
> 
> The medical profession - bound by the basic tenet of medicine "do no harm" - felt it was in his best interests to let him die with dignity rather than have an experimental treatment that they believed would do him no good. In court they argued he had "no quality of life and no real prospect of any quality of life".
> 
> *But there is also an ethical dimension to this. Are doctors the right people to determine what constitutes "quality of life"? Do we put too much emphasis on their opinion?*_​
> 
> AND - Parents rights vs the child's - it comes down to a 1989 law designed to protect children. Not socialized medicine - *a law designed to prevent child abuse.*
> 
> *The rights of parents*
> But that brings us on to one of the key arguments put forward by Charlie's parents during the hours of legal discussion - the rights of parents to make decisions for their children.
> 
> They believed it should have been up to them to decide what was best for their son. But this is not what the law says.
> 
> *The 1989 Children's Act, which was introduced following a child abuse scandal in Cleveland, makes it clear that where a child is at risk of harm the state can and should intervene.*
> 
> Subsequent legislation has followed and *a framework has been created whereby the state has been emboldened to challenge the view of parents where they believe children's best interests are not being served.*
> 
> This sees doctors oppose the decision of parents who are Jehovah's Witnesses and refuse blood transfusions for their children.
> 
> The law is also used by councils to take children they believe are at risk into care.
> 
> Of course, proving someone is at risk or can be helped by medical treatment is much easier to do than proving a treatment is no longer in the best interests of a child when the parents disagree.
> 
> *But what was often overlooked in the Charlie Gard case was that it wasn't just the doctors against the parents. Charlie also had an independent guardian who agreed with the hospital.*
> 
> Daniel Sokol, a medical ethicist and barrister, says the case has shone a light on this issue. *"It reminds us that the rights of parents over their children are not absolute. They are limited by what is in the best interests of the child."*
> 
> But he says it is interesting that in the US, which played such a key role through the intervention of doctors who said they would be prepared to treat Charlie, and because of President Donald Trump's offer of help, the rights of parents to decide what is best are much more enshrined.
> 
> *"The wishes of parents and 'surrogates' generally carry more weight, which is why many US commentators have expressed surprise at the hospital's handling of this case," he says.
> 
> "For them, the doctors should do what the parents want."*​
> 
> It's a complex ethical situation imo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waste of time. NOBODY is attacking the Hospital. Not EVEN the Parents. The problem lies in the callousness and arrogance of a system that BLOCKS and prolongs an effort to attempt alternate treatment against the WILL of the baby's parents.
> 
> Oh WOW -- AN INDEPENDENT -- state appointed Guardian AGREEING with the State. Imagine that. Imagine how happy you'd be in the Soviet Union or East Germany..
Click to expand...


So parents can do anything they want with a child, is that it?


----------



## PredFan

irosie91 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's possibly the stupidest statement I've heard in a long time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you  "HEARD" it?     how long has this messageboard been TALKING TO YOU?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to one-up your stupid statement with a childish statement? Interesting strategy but it fell short I'm afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> actually there was nothing stupid about my statement-----it is something I learned from my older brother--LONG AGO-----he is a Professor of astrophysics-----much acclaimed and,  in fact,  a recipient of the president's  Freedom award for his contributions to the field of Astrophysics and NASA------and you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, either you are a liar, or your brother is an idiot. Statistics is part of science but it isn't all of science. That's just stupid. I don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> actually----you are wrong and he is right.    -----statistical analysis rules every branch of science-----and CERTAINLY ASTROPHYSICS------and psychiatrists are stuck with it----not easy for them
Click to expand...


Wrong.

I imagine it plays a larger part in some sciences than it does in others, but it doesn't play a large part in medicine, which is what we are talking about. Oh sure, there are statistics but that isn't medicine. We treat patients as individuals. That's why we are better than socialized medicine.


----------



## irosie91

PredFan said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you  "HEARD" it?     how long has this messageboard been TALKING TO YOU?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to one-up your stupid statement with a childish statement? Interesting strategy but it fell short I'm afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> actually there was nothing stupid about my statement-----it is something I learned from my older brother--LONG AGO-----he is a Professor of astrophysics-----much acclaimed and,  in fact,  a recipient of the president's  Freedom award for his contributions to the field of Astrophysics and NASA------and you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, either you are a liar, or your brother is an idiot. Statistics is part of science but it isn't all of science. That's just stupid. I don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> actually----you are wrong and he is right.    -----statistical analysis rules every branch of science-----and CERTAINLY ASTROPHYSICS------and psychiatrists are stuck with it----not easy for them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> I imagine it plays a larger part in some sciences than it does in others, but it doesn't play a large part in medicine, which is what we are talking about. Oh sure, there are statistics but that isn't medicine. We treat patients as individuals. That's why we are better than socialized medicine.
Click to expand...


sheeeeehs------stats are not important in medicine-?     how do you IMAGINE  "normal"  Na levels
are determined?---------every time you check a slip from the lab--------you are looking at a  STAT


----------



## flacaltenn

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because children aren't property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EVIDENTLY children are property of the STATE in the UK.  That's one Clinton "Village" I would FLEE from. Not only were Charlies parents not in the Guardian position with regards to his health care, but STATE APPARENTLY takes the Guardian position in any LEGAL trials.
> 
> Is THAT the "Village" -- you leftists want to create here?  Good damn luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me ask you the same question I asked others but never really got an answer.
> 
> The crux of the debate is "rights" - who has the right to make decisions for a child, the parents, the legal system, the medical community and how far do those rights go?
> 
> When it involves a child's life, it's even more heartwrenching because no child should have to die, it's just so wrong.
> 
> The US and Britain both have laws that attempt to guarantee that the child's RIGHTS and best interests are considered in complicated ethics cases.  I can understand that, though I can agree that it can go too far in some cases and not far enough in others.  The US law is much weaker - parents rights are given a great deal more power.  Huge exemptions are carved out for "religious rights" and those exemptions can and have lead to de facto abuse.  A child isn't property of the state.  But neither is it property of the parents.  A child has rights and if the parents fail to look after the child's rights - who does?  That's when the "Village" becomes necessary.
> 
> The question I have is - how far can parents go in seeking to sustain life or advocating an alternative treatment?  When does it become child abuse even if unintentional?
Click to expand...


There is simply no comparison of the Parents rights to Guardianship between the USA and UK and I want to KEEP it that way. You touted the State appointed LEGAL Guardian for Charlie as agreeing with the State. Is that REALLY an endorsement of "fairness"?  I also told you this shill was the EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR of the Boards of the 2 largest EUTHANASIA orgs in the UK..  *Is that a minor --- or a MAJOR --- conflict of interest?* 



> The US law is much weaker - parents rights are given a great deal more power.  Huge exemptions are carved out for "religious rights" and those exemptions can and have lead to de facto abuse.  A child isn't property of the state.



*US laws are WEAKER? * That's an admission that you DESIRE less Liberty and Freedom and worship the wisdom and compassion of an ALL POWERFUL State Govt. I can't believe you would think that parents having guardianship of their children is a WEAKER position. Unless you think individuals are cruel incapable morons. If there's abuse -- you PROSECUTE IT -- you do not turn ownership of your children to the State for Medical/Legal decisions.

And in this case -- as regards Medical/Legal decisions -- Charlie was EXACTLY "property of the State". 

It appears that the UK has gone SO FAR into Maoist direction over peoples choices, freedoms and liberties, that ANY CHILD is represented by a State Guardian in ANY legal proceedings over there.  HOPEFULLY, that will change.

I know people who own cats and dogs that would FURIOUS and ANGRY if the State assumed the Guardian position of them. But maybe --- children are another story..


----------



## flacaltenn

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is the implication that GOSH is substandard and knows less than outside specialists is wrong.  GOSH is one of the most respected and well-known children's hospital in the world.  It's world class and has research facilities for mitochondrial disorders.  Like many specialists faced with a patient with a rare and terminal illness - they consult with other specialists and researchers in that field.
> 
> Yet it has been the subject of vile attacks over this case that are unwarrented.  This article makes some good points and asks hard questions (that don't have right or wrong answers).
> 
> Charlie Gard: A case that changed everything? - BBC News
> *The tarnishing of a famous hospital*
> _Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) is perhaps the most respected and well-known children's hospital in the world. It has been synonymous with excellence ever since it was founded in the 1850s with patients from all over the world now being sent there for pioneering treatment.
> 
> And yet in the course of this case it found itself under attack with some staff reporting they had been victims of "vile" abuse and threats (Charlie's parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, also reported that they had been the target of abuse on a daily basis.)
> 
> *One of the problems the hospital faced, particularly as the case developed and the parents received more media attention, was that it simply could not win. *
> 
> *While Charlie's parents gave television and newspaper interviews and made pleas on social media, GOSH was left to rely on media statements and court papers to explain its position*. The hospital said it was not possible to give Charlie the non-invasive treatment - a powder that could be added to his food - that his parents felt could help him in his battle with mitochondrial depletion syndrome, a condition which causes progressive muscle weakness and brain damage.
> 
> *Rational, scientific logic was never going to win hearts and minds against the raw emotion of parents trying to do everything they could for the severely ill baby*.
> 
> Should more have been done by the world of medicine? As the case developed, GOSH started publishing more details about the case and its position.
> 
> But Prof Uta Frith, an expert in cognitive development at University College London, wonders if there is a lesson here, *arguing science cannot be entirely stripped of its emotional context.*
> 
> "We can never be 100% certain about our facts and theories. Emotion, which is utterly certain, wins in comparison.
> 
> "However, scientific reasoning cannot be completely stripped of emotion. Perhaps this is an asset we need to cultivate more. Reasoned evidence needs champions to engage the hearts of people."
> 
> But the case - and its importance - also comes down to a dilemma that becomes more acute as medicine develops. *At what point is it appropriate not to treat patients and allow them to die?*
> 
> These are discussions that go on every day in hospitals - and the overwhelming majority are resolved without major dispute.
> 
> Patients coming to the end of life - both the elderly and the young - are now routinely encouraged to discuss advanced care plans setting out how much they want doctors to do when they get closer to death. These plans cover everything from when it is appropriate to resuscitate to when treatment should be withdrawn and a patient moved on to palliative care to help them die with dignity.
> 
> Of course in Charlie's case, because he was a baby, this was simply not possible. Instead, he was kept alive on a ventilator while his parents and doctors took to the courts.
> 
> The medical profession - bound by the basic tenet of medicine "do no harm" - felt it was in his best interests to let him die with dignity rather than have an experimental treatment that they believed would do him no good. In court they argued he had "no quality of life and no real prospect of any quality of life".
> 
> *But there is also an ethical dimension to this. Are doctors the right people to determine what constitutes "quality of life"? Do we put too much emphasis on their opinion?*_​
> 
> AND - Parents rights vs the child's - it comes down to a 1989 law designed to protect children. Not socialized medicine - *a law designed to prevent child abuse.*
> 
> *The rights of parents*
> But that brings us on to one of the key arguments put forward by Charlie's parents during the hours of legal discussion - the rights of parents to make decisions for their children.
> 
> They believed it should have been up to them to decide what was best for their son. But this is not what the law says.
> 
> *The 1989 Children's Act, which was introduced following a child abuse scandal in Cleveland, makes it clear that where a child is at risk of harm the state can and should intervene.*
> 
> Subsequent legislation has followed and *a framework has been created whereby the state has been emboldened to challenge the view of parents where they believe children's best interests are not being served.*
> 
> This sees doctors oppose the decision of parents who are Jehovah's Witnesses and refuse blood transfusions for their children.
> 
> The law is also used by councils to take children they believe are at risk into care.
> 
> Of course, proving someone is at risk or can be helped by medical treatment is much easier to do than proving a treatment is no longer in the best interests of a child when the parents disagree.
> 
> *But what was often overlooked in the Charlie Gard case was that it wasn't just the doctors against the parents. Charlie also had an independent guardian who agreed with the hospital.*
> 
> Daniel Sokol, a medical ethicist and barrister, says the case has shone a light on this issue. *"It reminds us that the rights of parents over their children are not absolute. They are limited by what is in the best interests of the child."*
> 
> But he says it is interesting that in the US, which played such a key role through the intervention of doctors who said they would be prepared to treat Charlie, and because of President Donald Trump's offer of help, the rights of parents to decide what is best are much more enshrined.
> 
> *"The wishes of parents and 'surrogates' generally carry more weight, which is why many US commentators have expressed surprise at the hospital's handling of this case," he says.
> 
> "For them, the doctors should do what the parents want."*​
> 
> It's a complex ethical situation imo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waste of time. NOBODY is attacking the Hospital. Not EVEN the Parents. The problem lies in the callousness and arrogance of a system that BLOCKS and prolongs an effort to attempt alternate treatment against the WILL of the baby's parents.
> 
> Oh WOW -- AN INDEPENDENT -- state appointed Guardian AGREEING with the State. Imagine that. Imagine how happy you'd be in the Soviet Union or East Germany..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So parents can do anything they want with a child, is that it?
Click to expand...


No... They can't .. They WILL be prosecuted for abuse. That's how that should work. You don't ASSUME that every parent is incompetent and strip ALL their collective Guardianship rights. Only the arrogance of "we know best and you are untrustworthy" leftist thinking would punish EVERY parent for the abuses of some.


----------



## Coyote

......


flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because children aren't property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EVIDENTLY children are property of the STATE in the UK.  That's one Clinton "Village" I would FLEE from. Not only were Charlies parents not in the Guardian position with regards to his health care, but STATE APPARENTLY takes the Guardian position in any LEGAL trials.
> 
> Is THAT the "Village" -- you leftists want to create here?  Good damn luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me ask you the same question I asked others but never really got an answer.
> 
> The crux of the debate is "rights" - who has the right to make decisions for a child, the parents, the legal system, the medical community and how far do those rights go?
> 
> When it involves a child's life, it's even more heartwrenching because no child should have to die, it's just so wrong.
> 
> The US and Britain both have laws that attempt to guarantee that the child's RIGHTS and best interests are considered in complicated ethics cases.  I can understand that, though I can agree that it can go too far in some cases and not far enough in others.  The US law is much weaker - parents rights are given a great deal more power.  Huge exemptions are carved out for "religious rights" and those exemptions can and have lead to de facto abuse.  A child isn't property of the state.  But neither is it property of the parents.  A child has rights and if the parents fail to look after the child's rights - who does?  That's when the "Village" becomes necessary.
> 
> The question I have is - how far can parents go in seeking to sustain life or advocating an alternative treatment?  When does it become child abuse even if unintentional?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is simply no comparison of the Parents rights to Guardianship between the USA and UK and I want to KEEP it that way. You touted the State appointed LEGAL Guardian for Charlie as agreeing with the State. Is that REALLY an endorsement of "fairness"?  I also told you this shill was the EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR of the Boards of the 2 largest EUTHANASIA orgs in the UK..  *Is that a minor --- or a MAJOR --- conflict of interest?*
Click to expand...



IS it a conflict of interest? Because that implies that someone can't possibly advocate for life because he also supports a person being allowed to die.  It's also a conflict of interest for someone with a financial interest in an experimental therapy to advocate it...isn't it?

You're the one making it about the state.  It isn't really.  It's about representing *the child's interests vs. the parents interests.* *NO ONE WANTS A CHILD TO DIE *- you do understand that don't you?  You may disagree with it, or agree with it - but that is what it boils down to.




> The US law is much weaker - parents rights are given a great deal more power.  Huge exemptions are carved out for "religious rights" and those exemptions can and have lead to de facto abuse.  A child isn't property of the state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *US laws are WEAKER? * That's an admission that you DESIRE less Liberty and Freedom and worship the wisdom and compassion of an ALL POWERFUL State Govt. I can't believe you would think that parents having guardianship of their children is a WEAKER position. Unless you think individuals are cruel incapable morons. If there's abuse -- you PROSECUTE IT -- you do not turn ownership of your children to the State for Medical/Legal decisions.
Click to expand...


Before you yell at me about "weaker laws' - answer my question.  Look at those articles I linked to.  *How far can parent's rights go before it becomes indefensible child abuse?*  That's what these laws pertain to.  They may go to far - I'll agree with you on that - but in some cases they clearly do not go far enough.

Children are  not property and someone has to look out for their best interests.  Sometimes parents fail.  And sometimes government overreaches.



> And in this case -- as regards Medical/Legal decisions -- Charlie was EXACTLY "property of the State".
> 
> It appears that the UK has gone SO FAR into Maoist direction over peoples choices, freedoms and liberties, that ANY CHILD is represented by a State Guardian in ANY legal proceedings over there.  HOPEFULLY, that will change.
> 
> I know people who own cats and dogs that would FURIOUS and ANGRY if the State assumed the Guardian position of them. But maybe --- children are another story..



We have animal welfare laws and animal abuse laws and animals can and are confiscated for neglect or abuse.


----------



## Coyote

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is the implication that GOSH is substandard and knows less than outside specialists is wrong.  GOSH is one of the most respected and well-known children's hospital in the world.  It's world class and has research facilities for mitochondrial disorders.  Like many specialists faced with a patient with a rare and terminal illness - they consult with other specialists and researchers in that field.
> 
> Yet it has been the subject of vile attacks over this case that are unwarrented.  This article makes some good points and asks hard questions (that don't have right or wrong answers).
> 
> Charlie Gard: A case that changed everything? - BBC News
> *The tarnishing of a famous hospital*
> _Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) is perhaps the most respected and well-known children's hospital in the world. It has been synonymous with excellence ever since it was founded in the 1850s with patients from all over the world now being sent there for pioneering treatment.
> 
> And yet in the course of this case it found itself under attack with some staff reporting they had been victims of "vile" abuse and threats (Charlie's parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, also reported that they had been the target of abuse on a daily basis.)
> 
> *One of the problems the hospital faced, particularly as the case developed and the parents received more media attention, was that it simply could not win. *
> 
> *While Charlie's parents gave television and newspaper interviews and made pleas on social media, GOSH was left to rely on media statements and court papers to explain its position*. The hospital said it was not possible to give Charlie the non-invasive treatment - a powder that could be added to his food - that his parents felt could help him in his battle with mitochondrial depletion syndrome, a condition which causes progressive muscle weakness and brain damage.
> 
> *Rational, scientific logic was never going to win hearts and minds against the raw emotion of parents trying to do everything they could for the severely ill baby*.
> 
> Should more have been done by the world of medicine? As the case developed, GOSH started publishing more details about the case and its position.
> 
> But Prof Uta Frith, an expert in cognitive development at University College London, wonders if there is a lesson here, *arguing science cannot be entirely stripped of its emotional context.*
> 
> "We can never be 100% certain about our facts and theories. Emotion, which is utterly certain, wins in comparison.
> 
> "However, scientific reasoning cannot be completely stripped of emotion. Perhaps this is an asset we need to cultivate more. Reasoned evidence needs champions to engage the hearts of people."
> 
> But the case - and its importance - also comes down to a dilemma that becomes more acute as medicine develops. *At what point is it appropriate not to treat patients and allow them to die?*
> 
> These are discussions that go on every day in hospitals - and the overwhelming majority are resolved without major dispute.
> 
> Patients coming to the end of life - both the elderly and the young - are now routinely encouraged to discuss advanced care plans setting out how much they want doctors to do when they get closer to death. These plans cover everything from when it is appropriate to resuscitate to when treatment should be withdrawn and a patient moved on to palliative care to help them die with dignity.
> 
> Of course in Charlie's case, because he was a baby, this was simply not possible. Instead, he was kept alive on a ventilator while his parents and doctors took to the courts.
> 
> The medical profession - bound by the basic tenet of medicine "do no harm" - felt it was in his best interests to let him die with dignity rather than have an experimental treatment that they believed would do him no good. In court they argued he had "no quality of life and no real prospect of any quality of life".
> 
> *But there is also an ethical dimension to this. Are doctors the right people to determine what constitutes "quality of life"? Do we put too much emphasis on their opinion?*_​
> 
> AND - Parents rights vs the child's - it comes down to a 1989 law designed to protect children. Not socialized medicine - *a law designed to prevent child abuse.*
> 
> *The rights of parents*
> But that brings us on to one of the key arguments put forward by Charlie's parents during the hours of legal discussion - the rights of parents to make decisions for their children.
> 
> They believed it should have been up to them to decide what was best for their son. But this is not what the law says.
> 
> *The 1989 Children's Act, which was introduced following a child abuse scandal in Cleveland, makes it clear that where a child is at risk of harm the state can and should intervene.*
> 
> Subsequent legislation has followed and *a framework has been created whereby the state has been emboldened to challenge the view of parents where they believe children's best interests are not being served.*
> 
> This sees doctors oppose the decision of parents who are Jehovah's Witnesses and refuse blood transfusions for their children.
> 
> The law is also used by councils to take children they believe are at risk into care.
> 
> Of course, proving someone is at risk or can be helped by medical treatment is much easier to do than proving a treatment is no longer in the best interests of a child when the parents disagree.
> 
> *But what was often overlooked in the Charlie Gard case was that it wasn't just the doctors against the parents. Charlie also had an independent guardian who agreed with the hospital.*
> 
> Daniel Sokol, a medical ethicist and barrister, says the case has shone a light on this issue. *"It reminds us that the rights of parents over their children are not absolute. They are limited by what is in the best interests of the child."*
> 
> But he says it is interesting that in the US, which played such a key role through the intervention of doctors who said they would be prepared to treat Charlie, and because of President Donald Trump's offer of help, the rights of parents to decide what is best are much more enshrined.
> 
> *"The wishes of parents and 'surrogates' generally carry more weight, which is why many US commentators have expressed surprise at the hospital's handling of this case," he says.
> 
> "For them, the doctors should do what the parents want."*​
> 
> It's a complex ethical situation imo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waste of time. NOBODY is attacking the Hospital. Not EVEN the Parents. The problem lies in the callousness and arrogance of a system that BLOCKS and prolongs an effort to attempt alternate treatment against the WILL of the baby's parents.
> 
> Oh WOW -- AN INDEPENDENT -- state appointed Guardian AGREEING with the State. Imagine that. Imagine how happy you'd be in the Soviet Union or East Germany..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So parents can do anything they want with a child, is that it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... They can't .. They WILL be prosecuted for abuse. That's how that should work. You don't ASSUME that every parent is incompetent and strip ALL their collective Guardianship rights. *Only the arrogance of "we know best and you are untrustworthy" leftist thinking would punish EVERY parent for the abuses of some*.
Click to expand...


I don't think those laws assume every parent is incompetent.  From what I've read it only goes into affect when there are extreme differences between the medical ethics and the parents desires.

Look.  You're making the same generalizations here that you are accusing me of.  It's not EVERY parent.  It's SOME.


----------



## flacaltenn

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is the implication that GOSH is substandard and knows less than outside specialists is wrong.  GOSH is one of the most respected and well-known children's hospital in the world.  It's world class and has research facilities for mitochondrial disorders.  Like many specialists faced with a patient with a rare and terminal illness - they consult with other specialists and researchers in that field.
> 
> Yet it has been the subject of vile attacks over this case that are unwarrented.  This article makes some good points and asks hard questions (that don't have right or wrong answers).
> 
> Charlie Gard: A case that changed everything? - BBC News
> *The tarnishing of a famous hospital*
> _Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) is perhaps the most respected and well-known children's hospital in the world. It has been synonymous with excellence ever since it was founded in the 1850s with patients from all over the world now being sent there for pioneering treatment.
> 
> And yet in the course of this case it found itself under attack with some staff reporting they had been victims of "vile" abuse and threats (Charlie's parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, also reported that they had been the target of abuse on a daily basis.)
> 
> *One of the problems the hospital faced, particularly as the case developed and the parents received more media attention, was that it simply could not win. *
> 
> *While Charlie's parents gave television and newspaper interviews and made pleas on social media, GOSH was left to rely on media statements and court papers to explain its position*. The hospital said it was not possible to give Charlie the non-invasive treatment - a powder that could be added to his food - that his parents felt could help him in his battle with mitochondrial depletion syndrome, a condition which causes progressive muscle weakness and brain damage.
> 
> *Rational, scientific logic was never going to win hearts and minds against the raw emotion of parents trying to do everything they could for the severely ill baby*.
> 
> Should more have been done by the world of medicine? As the case developed, GOSH started publishing more details about the case and its position.
> 
> But Prof Uta Frith, an expert in cognitive development at University College London, wonders if there is a lesson here, *arguing science cannot be entirely stripped of its emotional context.*
> 
> "We can never be 100% certain about our facts and theories. Emotion, which is utterly certain, wins in comparison.
> 
> "However, scientific reasoning cannot be completely stripped of emotion. Perhaps this is an asset we need to cultivate more. Reasoned evidence needs champions to engage the hearts of people."
> 
> But the case - and its importance - also comes down to a dilemma that becomes more acute as medicine develops. *At what point is it appropriate not to treat patients and allow them to die?*
> 
> These are discussions that go on every day in hospitals - and the overwhelming majority are resolved without major dispute.
> 
> Patients coming to the end of life - both the elderly and the young - are now routinely encouraged to discuss advanced care plans setting out how much they want doctors to do when they get closer to death. These plans cover everything from when it is appropriate to resuscitate to when treatment should be withdrawn and a patient moved on to palliative care to help them die with dignity.
> 
> Of course in Charlie's case, because he was a baby, this was simply not possible. Instead, he was kept alive on a ventilator while his parents and doctors took to the courts.
> 
> The medical profession - bound by the basic tenet of medicine "do no harm" - felt it was in his best interests to let him die with dignity rather than have an experimental treatment that they believed would do him no good. In court they argued he had "no quality of life and no real prospect of any quality of life".
> 
> *But there is also an ethical dimension to this. Are doctors the right people to determine what constitutes "quality of life"? Do we put too much emphasis on their opinion?*_​
> 
> AND - Parents rights vs the child's - it comes down to a 1989 law designed to protect children. Not socialized medicine - *a law designed to prevent child abuse.*
> 
> *The rights of parents*
> But that brings us on to one of the key arguments put forward by Charlie's parents during the hours of legal discussion - the rights of parents to make decisions for their children.
> 
> They believed it should have been up to them to decide what was best for their son. But this is not what the law says.
> 
> *The 1989 Children's Act, which was introduced following a child abuse scandal in Cleveland, makes it clear that where a child is at risk of harm the state can and should intervene.*
> 
> Subsequent legislation has followed and *a framework has been created whereby the state has been emboldened to challenge the view of parents where they believe children's best interests are not being served.*
> 
> This sees doctors oppose the decision of parents who are Jehovah's Witnesses and refuse blood transfusions for their children.
> 
> The law is also used by councils to take children they believe are at risk into care.
> 
> Of course, proving someone is at risk or can be helped by medical treatment is much easier to do than proving a treatment is no longer in the best interests of a child when the parents disagree.
> 
> *But what was often overlooked in the Charlie Gard case was that it wasn't just the doctors against the parents. Charlie also had an independent guardian who agreed with the hospital.*
> 
> Daniel Sokol, a medical ethicist and barrister, says the case has shone a light on this issue. *"It reminds us that the rights of parents over their children are not absolute. They are limited by what is in the best interests of the child."*
> 
> But he says it is interesting that in the US, which played such a key role through the intervention of doctors who said they would be prepared to treat Charlie, and because of President Donald Trump's offer of help, the rights of parents to decide what is best are much more enshrined.
> 
> *"The wishes of parents and 'surrogates' generally carry more weight, which is why many US commentators have expressed surprise at the hospital's handling of this case," he says.
> 
> "For them, the doctors should do what the parents want."*​
> 
> It's a complex ethical situation imo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waste of time. NOBODY is attacking the Hospital. Not EVEN the Parents. The problem lies in the callousness and arrogance of a system that BLOCKS and prolongs an effort to attempt alternate treatment against the WILL of the baby's parents.
> 
> Oh WOW -- AN INDEPENDENT -- state appointed Guardian AGREEING with the State. Imagine that. Imagine how happy you'd be in the Soviet Union or East Germany..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So parents can do anything they want with a child, is that it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... They can't .. They WILL be prosecuted for abuse. That's how that should work. You don't ASSUME that every parent is incompetent and strip ALL their collective Guardianship rights. Only the arrogance of "we know best and you are untrustworthy" leftist thinking would punish EVERY parent for the abuses of some.
Click to expand...


Coyote -- I have seen lists of proposed "child abuse" guidelines from Leftist policy folks and orgs that include 

1) Feeding them a PopTart for breakfast.   OR 
2) Sending them to Sunday School

I do NOT trust those leftists to make Guardianship decisions on my parenting. And I will not give them the MASSIVE Political power to fuck with every hare-brained decision on LAW regarding child rearing. 

Nevermind denying me the RIGHT to take my child into a mainstream cutting edge Clinical Trial that COULD save what OTHERS CLAIM to be a terminally ill child. ESPECIALLY when they wanted to KILL that child 6 months before he died.  

WHY the FUck do we have Hospice Care? We could save 10 to 20% of end of life care costs by just going around pulling plugs out of the wall. These jerks would not even ALLOW Charlie to go back HOME for Hospice care. Just Fuck it all. That's not gonna happen in America...


----------



## flacaltenn

Coyote said:


> You're the one making it about the state. It isn't really. It's about representing *the child's interests vs. the parents interests.* *NO ONE WANTS A CHILD TO DIE *- you do understand that don't you? You may disagree with it, or agree with it - but that is what it boils down to.



You're barrelling right ahead here -- ain't ya? The NHS WANTED CHARLIE to die in April... The PARENTS had asked in JANUARY to just put their child in a clinical trial that COULD save his life back then.. 

Don't tell me --- NOBODY WANTS A CHILD TO DIE..  That's EXACTLY what this is all about..


----------



## flacaltenn

Several Brit Courts took THREE MONTHS of that child's LIMITED time on Earth to give their predetermined decision a phony stamp of LEGAL review. They felt NO SENSE of urgency.  What's ONE dead child compared to the droid-like efficiency of the NHS???

And their decision after 3 months was the same decision that had already been made. KILL him.. Court ordered termination.. They ate up any chance of that child being treated or at the very least helping thousands of others in his death..


----------



## EvilCat Breath

This is only one time.  How many other times have the government denied people medical care they were going to pay out of pocket for.


----------



## Coyote

flacaltenn said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is the implication that GOSH is substandard and knows less than outside specialists is wrong.  GOSH is one of the most respected and well-known children's hospital in the world.  It's world class and has research facilities for mitochondrial disorders.  Like many specialists faced with a patient with a rare and terminal illness - they consult with other specialists and researchers in that field.
> 
> Yet it has been the subject of vile attacks over this case that are unwarrented.  This article makes some good points and asks hard questions (that don't have right or wrong answers).
> 
> Charlie Gard: A case that changed everything? - BBC News
> *The tarnishing of a famous hospital*
> _Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) is perhaps the most respected and well-known children's hospital in the world. It has been synonymous with excellence ever since it was founded in the 1850s with patients from all over the world now being sent there for pioneering treatment.
> 
> And yet in the course of this case it found itself under attack with some staff reporting they had been victims of "vile" abuse and threats (Charlie's parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, also reported that they had been the target of abuse on a daily basis.)
> 
> *One of the problems the hospital faced, particularly as the case developed and the parents received more media attention, was that it simply could not win. *
> 
> *While Charlie's parents gave television and newspaper interviews and made pleas on social media, GOSH was left to rely on media statements and court papers to explain its position*. The hospital said it was not possible to give Charlie the non-invasive treatment - a powder that could be added to his food - that his parents felt could help him in his battle with mitochondrial depletion syndrome, a condition which causes progressive muscle weakness and brain damage.
> 
> *Rational, scientific logic was never going to win hearts and minds against the raw emotion of parents trying to do everything they could for the severely ill baby*.
> 
> Should more have been done by the world of medicine? As the case developed, GOSH started publishing more details about the case and its position.
> 
> But Prof Uta Frith, an expert in cognitive development at University College London, wonders if there is a lesson here, *arguing science cannot be entirely stripped of its emotional context.*
> 
> "We can never be 100% certain about our facts and theories. Emotion, which is utterly certain, wins in comparison.
> 
> "However, scientific reasoning cannot be completely stripped of emotion. Perhaps this is an asset we need to cultivate more. Reasoned evidence needs champions to engage the hearts of people."
> 
> But the case - and its importance - also comes down to a dilemma that becomes more acute as medicine develops. *At what point is it appropriate not to treat patients and allow them to die?*
> 
> These are discussions that go on every day in hospitals - and the overwhelming majority are resolved without major dispute.
> 
> Patients coming to the end of life - both the elderly and the young - are now routinely encouraged to discuss advanced care plans setting out how much they want doctors to do when they get closer to death. These plans cover everything from when it is appropriate to resuscitate to when treatment should be withdrawn and a patient moved on to palliative care to help them die with dignity.
> 
> Of course in Charlie's case, because he was a baby, this was simply not possible. Instead, he was kept alive on a ventilator while his parents and doctors took to the courts.
> 
> The medical profession - bound by the basic tenet of medicine "do no harm" - felt it was in his best interests to let him die with dignity rather than have an experimental treatment that they believed would do him no good. In court they argued he had "no quality of life and no real prospect of any quality of life".
> 
> *But there is also an ethical dimension to this. Are doctors the right people to determine what constitutes "quality of life"? Do we put too much emphasis on their opinion?*_​
> 
> AND - Parents rights vs the child's - it comes down to a 1989 law designed to protect children. Not socialized medicine - *a law designed to prevent child abuse.*
> 
> *The rights of parents*
> But that brings us on to one of the key arguments put forward by Charlie's parents during the hours of legal discussion - the rights of parents to make decisions for their children.
> 
> They believed it should have been up to them to decide what was best for their son. But this is not what the law says.
> 
> *The 1989 Children's Act, which was introduced following a child abuse scandal in Cleveland, makes it clear that where a child is at risk of harm the state can and should intervene.*
> 
> Subsequent legislation has followed and *a framework has been created whereby the state has been emboldened to challenge the view of parents where they believe children's best interests are not being served.*
> 
> This sees doctors oppose the decision of parents who are Jehovah's Witnesses and refuse blood transfusions for their children.
> 
> The law is also used by councils to take children they believe are at risk into care.
> 
> Of course, proving someone is at risk or can be helped by medical treatment is much easier to do than proving a treatment is no longer in the best interests of a child when the parents disagree.
> 
> *But what was often overlooked in the Charlie Gard case was that it wasn't just the doctors against the parents. Charlie also had an independent guardian who agreed with the hospital.*
> 
> Daniel Sokol, a medical ethicist and barrister, says the case has shone a light on this issue. *"It reminds us that the rights of parents over their children are not absolute. They are limited by what is in the best interests of the child."*
> 
> But he says it is interesting that in the US, which played such a key role through the intervention of doctors who said they would be prepared to treat Charlie, and because of President Donald Trump's offer of help, the rights of parents to decide what is best are much more enshrined.
> 
> *"The wishes of parents and 'surrogates' generally carry more weight, which is why many US commentators have expressed surprise at the hospital's handling of this case," he says.
> 
> "For them, the doctors should do what the parents want."*​
> 
> It's a complex ethical situation imo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waste of time. NOBODY is attacking the Hospital. Not EVEN the Parents. The problem lies in the callousness and arrogance of a system that BLOCKS and prolongs an effort to attempt alternate treatment against the WILL of the baby's parents.
> 
> Oh WOW -- AN INDEPENDENT -- state appointed Guardian AGREEING with the State. Imagine that. Imagine how happy you'd be in the Soviet Union or East Germany..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So parents can do anything they want with a child, is that it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... They can't .. They WILL be prosecuted for abuse. That's how that should work. You don't ASSUME that every parent is incompetent and strip ALL their collective Guardianship rights. Only the arrogance of "we know best and you are untrustworthy" leftist thinking would punish EVERY parent for the abuses of some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coyote -- I have seen lists of proposed "child abuse" guidelines from Leftist policy folks and orgs that include
> 
> 1) Feeding them a PopTart for breakfast.   OR
> 2) Sending them to Sunday School
> 
> I do NOT trust those leftists to make Guardianship decisions on my parenting. And I will not give them the MASSIVE Political power to fuck with every hare-brained decision on LAW regarding child rearing.
> 
> Nevermind denying me the RIGHT to take my child into a mainstream cutting edge Clinical Trial that COULD save what OTHERS CLAIM to be a terminally ill child. ESPECIALLY when they wanted to KILL that child 6 months before he died.
> 
> WHY the FUck do we have Hospice Care? We could save 10 to 20% of end of life care costs by just going around pulling plugs out of the wall. These jerks would not even ALLOW Charlie to go back HOME for Hospice care. Just Fuck it all. That's not gonna happen in America...
Click to expand...


I agree - people go TO FAR with some of this.  You're preaching to the choir.   Ok, you won't trust leftist to make Guardianship decisions, well what about a RIGHTIST - you know, the guys who are behind the religious exemptions allowing legally sanctioned child abuse?

And in Charlie's case - it wasn't "cutting edge" - it was so experimental it hadn't even been tried on mice with Charlie's form of disease and none of it had been tried in ANY clinical trials, much less with Charlie's form of the disease - not to mention the fact that he was already diagnosed with epileptic encephalopathy in December, indicating severe brain damage.  

How long do you keep trying something for someone who can not speak for themselves and who should speak for them if there is suffering involved or end of life decisions?

The parents should be the first choice...but what if they go against established and expert medical advice, how far should they be allowed to go?

I don't think there is a clear cut answer.


----------



## Coyote

flacaltenn said:


> Several Brit Courts took THREE MONTHS of that child's LIMITED time on Earth to give their predetermined decision a phony stamp of LEGAL review. They felt NO SENSE of urgency.  What's ONE dead child compared to the droid-like efficiency of the NHS???
> 
> And their decision after 3 months was the same decision that had already been made. KILL him.. Court ordered termination.. They ate up any chance of that child being treated or at the very least helping thousands of others in his death..



I think you are doing a disservice to the doctors involved in the child's care.  Charlie's condition markedly deteriorated by December.  In fact - they were in the process of obtaining a "compassionate  use" exemption FOR the therapy (and, that's the same legal process WE in the US have to go through with experimental therapies)when it became apparent the child had deteriorated markedly and would not be helped by the therapy other than being kept in a persistent vegetative state.  *It was after that it went to the courts*.


----------



## Coyote

Tipsycatlover said:


> This is only one time.  How many other times have the government denied people medical care they were going to pay out of pocket for.



You made the claim, show us.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

All experimental treatment goes against standard medical practice.   At one time, doctors and nurses washing their hands went against standard medical practice.  

Once the government announces that this patient shall die, they can't buy their way out and pay for their own medical care.


----------



## Coyote

Tipsycatlover said:


> All experimental treatment goes against standard medical practice.   At one time, doctors and nurses washing their hands went against standard medical practice.
> 
> Once the government announces that this patient shall die, they can't buy their way out and pay for their own medical care.


The government wasn't who decided.

You are right though about experimental treatment...but there is a way in which to use it ethically.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once the doctor knows the patient will be their patient they will look at the records.
> 
> *No doctor was called in as a consulting doctor for Charlie Gard so the mention is specious. *
> 
> There is only one issue and it is not whether any doctor should have reviewed the records.
> 
> The sole issue is that these people could pay for medical care and was legally prohibited from receiving that care.  That's it.
> 
> Today Charlie Gard, tomorrow it's grandma with a broken hip and money in the bank.  Once the government says no medical care, even if you could pay, you die and that's just the way the government wants it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that isn't true.  And Britain has had some form of NHS since about 1948.  Grandma still gets her broken hip fixed, and those with money can seek treatment outside of the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidently NOT.  Because Charlie's parents  RAISED the money and would have gotten LOTS of help on Life Flights and things like that. So OBVIOUSLY, even with the MONEY -- *the State OWNED that child*. That's the outrage. Evidently -- you're immune from obvious and want to defend the indefensible any way that you can..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not defending the indefensible.
> 
> You're trying to make this something it's not.
> 
> Parents do not OWN a child either.
> .
Click to expand...


Yeah we do. You on the left are under the impression they belong to society....you couldn't be more wrong.

Keep your paws off of them, cease your indoctrinatin of them, stop with sexulation of them with this gay, trans, etc. BS.

You want a war? That's  a damn good way to get one. I know plenty of parents...we're weary of you people. 

The parents of Charlie Gard AND Charlie Gard were wronged.

That's a fact


----------



## Coyote

SassyIrishLass said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once the doctor knows the patient will be their patient they will look at the records.
> 
> *No doctor was called in as a consulting doctor for Charlie Gard so the mention is specious. *
> 
> There is only one issue and it is not whether any doctor should have reviewed the records.
> 
> The sole issue is that these people could pay for medical care and was legally prohibited from receiving that care.  That's it.
> 
> Today Charlie Gard, tomorrow it's grandma with a broken hip and money in the bank.  Once the government says no medical care, even if you could pay, you die and that's just the way the government wants it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that isn't true.  And Britain has had some form of NHS since about 1948.  Grandma still gets her broken hip fixed, and those with money can seek treatment outside of the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidently NOT.  Because Charlie's parents  RAISED the money and would have gotten LOTS of help on Life Flights and things like that. So OBVIOUSLY, even with the MONEY -- *the State OWNED that child*. That's the outrage. Evidently -- you're immune from obvious and want to defend the indefensible any way that you can..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not defending the indefensible.
> 
> You're trying to make this something it's not.
> 
> Parents do not OWN a child either.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah we do. You on the left are under the impression they belong to society....you couldn't be more wrong.
> 
> Keep your paws off of them, cease your indoctrinatin of them, stop with sexulation of them with this gay, trans, etc. BS.
> 
> You want a war? That's  a damn good way to get one. I know plenty of parents...we're weary of you people.
> 
> The parents of Charlie Gard AND Charlie Gard were wronged.
> 
> That's a fact
Click to expand...


I don't want a fight with you Sassy.

But what happens when parents are wrong?


btw...sexualization of children?  Maybe you should look at those child pagents.

That too is "you people".


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Coyote said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once the doctor knows the patient will be their patient they will look at the records.
> 
> *No doctor was called in as a consulting doctor for Charlie Gard so the mention is specious. *
> 
> There is only one issue and it is not whether any doctor should have reviewed the records.
> 
> The sole issue is that these people could pay for medical care and was legally prohibited from receiving that care.  That's it.
> 
> Today Charlie Gard, tomorrow it's grandma with a broken hip and money in the bank.  Once the government says no medical care, even if you could pay, you die and that's just the way the government wants it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that isn't true.  And Britain has had some form of NHS since about 1948.  Grandma still gets her broken hip fixed, and those with money can seek treatment outside of the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidently NOT.  Because Charlie's parents  RAISED the money and would have gotten LOTS of help on Life Flights and things like that. So OBVIOUSLY, even with the MONEY -- *the State OWNED that child*. That's the outrage. Evidently -- you're immune from obvious and want to defend the indefensible any way that you can..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not defending the indefensible.
> 
> You're trying to make this something it's not.
> 
> Parents do not OWN a child either.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah we do. You on the left are under the impression they belong to society....you couldn't be more wrong.
> 
> Keep your paws off of them, cease your indoctrinatin of them, stop with sexulation of them with this gay, trans, etc. BS.
> 
> You want a war? That's  a damn good way to get one. I know plenty of parents...we're weary of you people.
> 
> The parents of Charlie Gard AND Charlie Gard were wronged.
> 
> That's a fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want a fight with you Sassy.
> 
> But what happens when parents are wrong?
> 
> 
> btw...sexualization of children?  Maybe you should look at those child pagents.
> 
> That too is "you people".
Click to expand...


Oh good grief, yeah we're teaching them gay and trans shit in preschool.

Keep your paws off of them. 

There is a saying, the most dangerous place in the world...between a mother and her childten.

Heed it. I live it


----------



## Lucy Hamilton

SassyIrishLass said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once the doctor knows the patient will be their patient they will look at the records.
> 
> *No doctor was called in as a consulting doctor for Charlie Gard so the mention is specious. *
> 
> There is only one issue and it is not whether any doctor should have reviewed the records.
> 
> The sole issue is that these people could pay for medical care and was legally prohibited from receiving that care.  That's it.
> 
> Today Charlie Gard, tomorrow it's grandma with a broken hip and money in the bank.  Once the government says no medical care, even if you could pay, you die and that's just the way the government wants it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that isn't true.  And Britain has had some form of NHS since about 1948.  Grandma still gets her broken hip fixed, and those with money can seek treatment outside of the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidently NOT.  Because Charlie's parents  RAISED the money and would have gotten LOTS of help on Life Flights and things like that. So OBVIOUSLY, even with the MONEY -- *the State OWNED that child*. That's the outrage. Evidently -- you're immune from obvious and want to defend the indefensible any way that you can..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not defending the indefensible.
> 
> You're trying to make this something it's not.
> 
> Parents do not OWN a child either.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah we do. You on the left are under the impression they belong to society....you couldn't be more wrong.
> 
> Keep your paws off of them, cease your indoctrinatin of them, stop with sexulation of them with this gay, trans, etc. BS.
> 
> You want a war? That's  a damn good way to get one. I know plenty of parents...we're weary of you people.
> 
> The parents of Charlie Gard AND Charlie Gard were wronged.
> 
> That's a fact
Click to expand...


*"Keep your paws off of them, cease your indoctrinatin of them, stop with sexulation of them with this gay, trans, etc. BS."*

Most of that crowd have NO children of their own, most are either LGBTQ freaks or barren women or weirdos who have chosen to be biologically abnormal and not have children.

People who have NO children of their own should have NO say in how children are brought up or educated.


----------



## Coyote

SassyIrishLass said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that isn't true.  And Britain has had some form of NHS since about 1948.  Grandma still gets her broken hip fixed, and those with money can seek treatment outside of the system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently NOT.  Because Charlie's parents  RAISED the money and would have gotten LOTS of help on Life Flights and things like that. So OBVIOUSLY, even with the MONEY -- *the State OWNED that child*. That's the outrage. Evidently -- you're immune from obvious and want to defend the indefensible any way that you can..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not defending the indefensible.
> 
> You're trying to make this something it's not.
> 
> Parents do not OWN a child either.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah we do. You on the left are under the impression they belong to society....you couldn't be more wrong.
> 
> Keep your paws off of them, cease your indoctrinatin of them, stop with sexulation of them with this gay, trans, etc. BS.
> 
> You want a war? That's  a damn good way to get one. I know plenty of parents...we're weary of you people.
> 
> The parents of Charlie Gard AND Charlie Gard were wronged.
> 
> That's a fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want a fight with you Sassy.
> 
> But what happens when parents are wrong?
> 
> 
> btw...sexualization of children?  Maybe you should look at those child pagents.
> 
> That too is "you people".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh good grief, yeah we're teaching them gay and trans shit in preschool.
> 
> Keep your paws off of them.
> 
> There is a saying, the most dangerous place in the world...between a mother and her childten.
> 
> Heed it. I live it
Click to expand...

 
And what about child pagents?  Photographers who SEXUALIZE children? I'm more worried about that then I am about gay and trans stuff.

Isn't there something TERRIBLY wrong with this?  But it's MAINSTREAM!


----------



## Lucy Hamilton

Coyote said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently NOT.  Because Charlie's parents  RAISED the money and would have gotten LOTS of help on Life Flights and things like that. So OBVIOUSLY, even with the MONEY -- *the State OWNED that child*. That's the outrage. Evidently -- you're immune from obvious and want to defend the indefensible any way that you can..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not defending the indefensible.
> 
> You're trying to make this something it's not.
> 
> Parents do not OWN a child either.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah we do. You on the left are under the impression they belong to society....you couldn't be more wrong.
> 
> Keep your paws off of them, cease your indoctrinatin of them, stop with sexulation of them with this gay, trans, etc. BS.
> 
> You want a war? That's  a damn good way to get one. I know plenty of parents...we're weary of you people.
> 
> The parents of Charlie Gard AND Charlie Gard were wronged.
> 
> That's a fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want a fight with you Sassy.
> 
> But what happens when parents are wrong?
> 
> 
> btw...sexualization of children?  Maybe you should look at those child pagents.
> 
> That too is "you people".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh good grief, yeah we're teaching them gay and trans shit in preschool.
> 
> Keep your paws off of them.
> 
> There is a saying, the most dangerous place in the world...between a mother and her childten.
> 
> Heed it. I live it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what about child pagents?  Photographers who SEXUALIZE children? I'm more worried about that then I am about gay and trans stuff.
> 
> Isn't there something TERRIBLY wrong with this?  But it's MAINSTREAM!
Click to expand...


So you are saying you're worried about child pageants but not worried about children who are being psychologically abused by perverts who are pushing the faggot and Transgender crap at then?

I mean can't you be worried about the child pageants AND the faggot and Transgender crap also? Or would that not be Politically Correct for you to contemplate?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Coyote said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently NOT.  Because Charlie's parents  RAISED the money and would have gotten LOTS of help on Life Flights and things like that. So OBVIOUSLY, even with the MONEY -- *the State OWNED that child*. That's the outrage. Evidently -- you're immune from obvious and want to defend the indefensible any way that you can..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not defending the indefensible.
> 
> You're trying to make this something it's not.
> 
> Parents do not OWN a child either.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah we do. You on the left are under the impression they belong to society....you couldn't be more wrong.
> 
> Keep your paws off of them, cease your indoctrinatin of them, stop with sexulation of them with this gay, trans, etc. BS.
> 
> You want a war? That's  a damn good way to get one. I know plenty of parents...we're weary of you people.
> 
> The parents of Charlie Gard AND Charlie Gard were wronged.
> 
> That's a fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want a fight with you Sassy.
> 
> But what happens when parents are wrong?
> 
> 
> btw...sexualization of children?  Maybe you should look at those child pagents.
> 
> That too is "you people".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh good grief, yeah we're teaching them gay and trans shit in preschool.
> 
> Keep your paws off of them.
> 
> There is a saying, the most dangerous place in the world...between a mother and her childten.
> 
> Heed it. I live it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what about child pagents?  Photographers who SEXUALIZE children? I'm more worried about that then I am about gay and trans stuff.
> 
> Isn't there something TERRIBLY wrong with this?  But it's MAINSTREAM!
Click to expand...


I'm no fan of all that and it's usually mother's living through their daughters. But there is a big diffetence between that and going after the same age group on gay, trans and gender issues. Then it progresses to crap like Teen Vogue basically pushing anal sex on tweens and teens.

I cannot understand this sudden push on all of it. It's some sort of agenda and people are watching and aware. Many mothers have told me.

Life today is hard enough for a child, stop throwing all this garbage at them. A four, five, six year old isn't ready to confront it


----------



## Lucy Hamilton

Coyote said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently NOT.  Because Charlie's parents  RAISED the money and would have gotten LOTS of help on Life Flights and things like that. So OBVIOUSLY, even with the MONEY -- *the State OWNED that child*. That's the outrage. Evidently -- you're immune from obvious and want to defend the indefensible any way that you can..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not defending the indefensible.
> 
> You're trying to make this something it's not.
> 
> Parents do not OWN a child either.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah we do. You on the left are under the impression they belong to society....you couldn't be more wrong.
> 
> Keep your paws off of them, cease your indoctrinatin of them, stop with sexulation of them with this gay, trans, etc. BS.
> 
> You want a war? That's  a damn good way to get one. I know plenty of parents...we're weary of you people.
> 
> The parents of Charlie Gard AND Charlie Gard were wronged.
> 
> That's a fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want a fight with you Sassy.
> 
> But what happens when parents are wrong?
> 
> 
> btw...sexualization of children?  Maybe you should look at those child pagents.
> 
> That too is "you people".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh good grief, yeah we're teaching them gay and trans shit in preschool.
> 
> Keep your paws off of them.
> 
> There is a saying, the most dangerous place in the world...between a mother and her childten.
> 
> Heed it. I live it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what about child pagents?  Photographers who SEXUALIZE children? I'm more worried about that then I am about gay and trans stuff.
> 
> Isn't there something TERRIBLY wrong with this?  But it's MAINSTREAM!
Click to expand...


What's your opinion of this below, do you think these young children are not being indoctrinated by perverted degenerates or do you think these young children are doing these things of their own accord? If the latter then how? Young children of their own accord do not understand this, it's being PUT into their minds by perverted adults.











The below is a boy, why is he being made to dress as a girl? Is it so faggots can anally violate him, probably.






The below degenerate should either be shot where they stand or thrown into a dungeon and left there until it rots.


----------



## Coyote

My feelings are this.

As a society we are ALL responsible for the children in our society.  We all contribute to pay for their education and welfare, and if their parents fail or fall, we all SHOULD be willing to do what is necessary to pick up the pieces and help them.

And as you know, I don't have children but that doesn't diminish my responsibility.

In the pictures you (Lucy) show above my feeling is this.  Children should be taught to be COMPASSIONATE of all humanity.  To not judge on outward appearances.  Is that indoctrination?

On the other hand, parents should not sexualize children.  Children are too young to make gender determinations and parents should NOT make them for them.  They should be understanding, compassionate and STAND BY their children.  If, after puberty, the child's choice is not his biological assignment, I hope the parents understand and love that child all the more.  Is that to alien a concept?

On sexualizing children - LOOK AT BEAUTY PAGENTS - it's disgusting.  Children masquerading as fully sexualized adults.  It's so wrong.  Let them be children.  Don't force gender choices on them and don't turn them into sexual beings before they need to be


----------



## Lucy Hamilton

Coyote said:


> My feelings are this.
> 
> As a society we are ALL responsible for the children in our society.  We all contribute to pay for their education and welfare, and if their parents fail or fall, we all SHOULD be willing to do what is necessary to pick up the pieces and help them.
> 
> And as you know, I don't have children but that doesn't diminish my responsibility.
> 
> In the pictures you (Lucy) show above my feeling is this.  Children should be taught to be COMPASSIONATE of all humanity.  To not judge on outward appearances.  Is that indoctrination?
> 
> On the other hand, parents should not sexualize children.  Children are too young to make gender determinations and parents should NOT make them for them.  They should be understanding, compassionate and STAND BY their children.  If, after puberty, the child's choice is not his biological assignment, I hope the parents understand and love that child all the more.  Is that to alien a concept?
> 
> On sexualizing children - LOOK AT BEAUTY PAGENTS - it's disgusting.  Children masquerading as fully sexualized adults.  It's so wrong.  Let them be children.  Don't force gender choices on them and don't turn them into sexual beings before they need to be



*"In the pictures you (Lucy) show above my feeling is this. Children should be taught to be COMPASSIONATE of all humanity. To not judge on outward appearances. Is that indoctrination?"*

That isn't what I refer to. I refer to the indoctrination of young children with the LGBTQ Perverts Agenda ie.

If a boy plays with a girls toy, it means he's a boy trapped in a girls body. If a girl plays with a boys toy, it means she's a boy trapped in a girls body. That there is 56 Genders and that boys can have periods also etc.

There is nothing compassionate about this, it's evil and it's child abuse.


----------



## Coyote

Lucy Hamilton said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> My feelings are this.
> 
> As a society we are ALL responsible for the children in our society.  We all contribute to pay for their education and welfare, and if their parents fail or fall, we all SHOULD be willing to do what is necessary to pick up the pieces and help them.
> 
> And as you know, I don't have children but that doesn't diminish my responsibility.
> 
> In the pictures you (Lucy) show above my feeling is this.  Children should be taught to be COMPASSIONATE of all humanity.  To not judge on outward appearances.  Is that indoctrination?
> 
> On the other hand, parents should not sexualize children.  Children are too young to make gender determinations and parents should NOT make them for them.  They should be understanding, compassionate and STAND BY their children.  If, after puberty, the child's choice is not his biological assignment, I hope the parents understand and love that child all the more.  Is that to alien a concept?
> 
> On sexualizing children - LOOK AT BEAUTY PAGENTS - it's disgusting.  Children masquerading as fully sexualized adults.  It's so wrong.  Let them be children.  Don't force gender choices on them and don't turn them into sexual beings before they need to be
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"In the pictures you (Lucy) show above my feeling is this. Children should be taught to be COMPASSIONATE of all humanity. To not judge on outward appearances. Is that indoctrination?"*
> 
> That isn't what I refer to. I refer to the indoctrination of young children with the LGBTQ Perverts Agenda ie.
> 
> If a boy plays with a girls toy, it means he's a boy trapped in a girls body. If a girl plays with a boys toy, it means she's a boy trapped in a girls body. That there is 56 Genders and that boys can have periods also etc.
> 
> There is nothing compassionate about this, it's evil and it's child abuse.
Click to expand...


I think boys and girls should be allowed to play with the toys they choose without fear of labels...is that reasonable?  It doesn't mean anything in terms of gender.  But if, after puberty...a child truly feels he's trapped in the wrong body, then lets be open to that.

56 genders, yes...that may be a bit much.


----------



## flacaltenn

Coyote said:


> agree - people go TO FAR with some of this. You're preaching to the choir. Ok, you won't trust leftist to make Guardianship decisions, well what about a RIGHTIST - you know, the guys who are behind the religious exemptions allowing legally sanctioned child abuse?



I wouldn't let a panel of Buddhist Monks all with Nobel Prizes make those decisions. And you're foolish if you think giving that kind of Freedom Killing Power to the State is gonna end well. Because YOU and your tribe will lose control of it one day and it will be TURNED ON YOU..  That's the point. By trying to make the State the more muscular and powerful Mummie and Daddy -- you are creating a MONSTER. One that can be hijacked for ANYONE'S whims and desires.  

Indies and 3rd parties MOSTLY understand this. Lefties and Righties can THINK past the last time they "lost power".. 



Coyote said:


> And in Charlie's case - it wasn't "cutting edge" - it was so experimental it hadn't even been tried on mice with Charlie's form of disease and none of it had been tried in ANY clinical trials, much less with Charlie's form of the disease - not to mention the fact that he was already diagnosed with epileptic encephalopathy in December, indicating severe brain damage.



Not true. I gave you the statements of a parent who was saved from certain death with a similar Mitochondrial disease. The purpose of GETTING CHARLIE to the US was to determine in THEIR LAB whether they could treat and make a difference. If YES -- Charlie had a chance to get better.. If NO --- then they return to UK and have a hospice situation.  WE and the WORLD have NO RIGHT to be arguing over this. The only reason there's an argument is that the UK has USURPED parental rights to decide alternate treatment. 

It's NOT just mice.  It's 16 or 18 kids with same general dysfunction that have been saved..  Depending on the genetic "recoding" ability -- the chance was 15 to 50% REMISSION from Jan to about April. That can ONLY be determine in cases like this by having the FULL research and laboratory set-up available to RUN the very complex protocols that my daughter runs for "gene recoding".  And for which I've spent a large part of my life designing the specialized equipment to do this.. 

  And that should have been a very quiet event for the parents to AVAIL themselves of this chance for Charlie.


----------



## Coyote

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> agree - people go TO FAR with some of this. You're preaching to the choir. Ok, you won't trust leftist to make Guardianship decisions, well what about a RIGHTIST - you know, the guys who are behind the religious exemptions allowing legally sanctioned child abuse?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't let a panel of Buddhist Monks all with Nobel Prizes make those decisions. And you're foolish if you think giving that kind of Freedom Killing Power to the State is gonna end well. Because YOU and your tribe will lose control of it one day and it will be TURNED ON YOU..  That's the point. By trying to make the State the more muscular and powerful Mummie and Daddy -- you are creating a MONSTER. One that can be hijacked for ANYONE'S whims and desires.
> 
> Indies and 3rd parties MOSTLY understand this. Lefties and Righties can THINK past the last time they "lost power"..
Click to expand...


It has nothing to do with "tribes" flac...

*WHO should make decisions?  It sounds like you are saying it should always be the parents.  In that case - what about the articles I cited?*  It's not even right vs left.  POLITICIANS are turning it into right/left arguments.  It isn't - it's an ethics argument, with the parents on one side and the medical community on the other and the child in the middle.  It NEVER WAS a POLITICAL argument until AMERICAN partisans got into it.



> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in Charlie's case - it wasn't "cutting edge" - it was so experimental it hadn't even been tried on mice with Charlie's form of disease and none of it had been tried in ANY clinical trials, much less with Charlie's form of the disease - not to mention the fact that he was already diagnosed with epileptic encephalopathy in December, indicating severe brain damage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. I gave you the statements of a parent who was saved from certain death with a similar Mitochondrial disease. The purpose of GETTING CHARLIE to the US was to determine in THEIR LAB whether they could treat and make a difference. If YES -- Charlie had a chance to get better.. If NO --- then they return to UK and have a hospice situation.  WE and the WORLD have NO RIGHT to be arguing over this. The only reason there's an argument is that the UK has USURPED parental rights to decide alternate treatment.
Click to expand...


That is where you are wrong.  Mitochondrial diseases are not one disease, they are a collection of diseases with different mutations involved and they run the gamut from extremely severe (Charlie) to less severe.  Charlie's was determined to be one of the most severe.  The other child who was helped had a DIFFERENT mutation.

And you are talking about having a terminally ill child on life support making a transatlantic flight.

You are right - we and the world have no right to be arguing over it - it's between his parents, the doctors and the UK courts.



> It's NOT just mice.  It's 16 or 18 kids with same general dysfunction that have been saved..  Depending on the genetic "recoding" ability -- the chance was 15 to 50% REMISSION from Jan to about April. That can ONLY be determine in cases like this by having the FULL research and laboratory set-up available to RUN the very complex protocols that my daughter runs for "gene recoding".  And for which I've spent a large part of my life designing the specialized equipment to do this..



It's not 16 or 18 kids.  It's one.  Out of that group, we only know the results for ONE child, with a DIFFERENT mutation than Charlie.

And keep in mind, GOSH IS a top notch research facility for mitochondrial disorders.  I'm sure they have the full laboratory and necessary set up needed.


----------



## flacaltenn

Coyote said:


> But what happens when parents are wrong?



I told you how that works. When it's discovered, it is PROSECUTED. And THEN the State steps in. You don't design a system that ASSUMES EVERY PARENT is cruel and unreasonable or stupid. UNLESS -- your political leanings just ASSUME that you and your clan are BRIGHTER, and MORE COMPASSIONATE, and WISER than most of us..


----------



## Coyote

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what happens when parents are wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I told you how that works. When it's discovered, it is PROSECUTED. And THEN the State steps in. You don't design a system that ASSUMES EVERY PARENT is cruel and unreasonable or stupid. UNLESS -- your political leanings just ASSUME that you and your clan are BRIGHTER, and MORE COMPASSIONATE, and WISER than most of us..
Click to expand...


It's not about clans.  Quit on that!

Ok...when it's discovered, it's prosecuted.  And the child might already be dead.

No one is talking about a system that assumes every parent is cruel etc - THAT is a STRAWMAN.

But you need something between a dead child and parental rights don't you think?


----------



## flacaltenn

Coyote said:


> *WHO should make decisions? It sounds like you are saying it should always be the parents. In that case - what about the articles I cited?* It's not even right vs left. POLITICIANS are turning it into right/left arguments. It isn't - it's an ethics argument, with the parents on one side and the medical community on the other and the child in the middle. It NEVER WAS a POLITICAL argument until AMERICAN partisans got into it.




This has EVERYTHING to do with tribal warfare. Pitting ONE SIDE that reflexively gives that Power to the State in ALL CASES --- against the other side who reserves the elements of Liberty Freedom and CHOICE to sovereign individuals. The way that classic Liberals wanted it to be. Leftists have the fear of concentrated power bred right out of their souls. Because of the arrogance of believing that THEY are wiser, more compassionate and wiser than the rest of us. This is NOT the classic Liberal attitude where a fear of the STATE becoming your Nanny was real thing.   Ask Thoreau -- he'll tell you... 

And this case demonstrates what can happen in a country where parents are STRIPPED of all Guardianship rights and have to BEG and PLEAD for EVERY concession..  Is that REALLY what you intend? Because that is apparently the case NOW in the UK.  Thank Gawd that in the in the US any proposed law that would A PRIORY strip parental guardianship would be unconstitutional. 

Leaving YOUR CLAN to decide -- child abuse would soon extend to the PopTarts at breakfast and the Sunday School requirement. While making it hunky-dory to take your 10 yr old to a Gay Pride parade for the humping, wagging wieners, and bouncy tits.


----------



## Coyote

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> *WHO should make decisions? It sounds like you are saying it should always be the parents. In that case - what about the articles I cited?* It's not even right vs left. POLITICIANS are turning it into right/left arguments. It isn't - it's an ethics argument, with the parents on one side and the medical community on the other and the child in the middle. It NEVER WAS a POLITICAL argument until AMERICAN partisans got into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has EVERYTHING to do with tribal warfare. Pitting ONE SIDE that reflexively gives that Power to the State in ALL CASES --- against the other side who reserves the elements of Liberty Freedom and CHOICE to sovereign individuals. The way that classic Liberals wanted it to be. Leftists have the fear of concentrated power bred right out of their souls. Because of the arrogance of believing that THEY are wiser, more compassionate and wiser than the rest of us. This is NOT the classic Liberal attitude where a fear of the STATE becoming your Nanny was real thing.   Ask Thoreau -- he'll tell you...
> 
> And this case demonstrates what can happen in a country where parents are STRIPPED of all Guardianship rights and have to BEG and PLEAD for EVERY concession..  Is that REALLY what you intend? Because that is apparently the case NOW in the UK.  Thank Gawd that in the in the US any proposed law that would A PRIORY strip parental guardianship would be unconstitutional.
> 
> Leaving YOUR CLAN to decide -- child abuse would soon extend to the PopTarts at breakfast and the Sunday School requirement. While making it hunky-dory to take your 10 yr old to a Gay Pride parade for the humping, wagging wieners, and bouncy tits.
Click to expand...


For heaven's sakes - you are totally exagerating.  It's not about effing clans. 
*
NO ONE is talking about stripping parents of ALL guardianship rights either.*

Let me know when you want to talk about what *ACTUALLY is happening*.  Otherwise I'm done.


----------



## flacaltenn

Coyote said:


> That is where you are wrong. Mitochondrial diseases are not one disease, they are a collection of diseases with different mutations involved and they run the gamut from extremely severe (Charlie) to less severe. Charlie's was determined to be one of the most severe. The other child who was helped had a DIFFERENT mutation.



I've told you six times,, now seven.  The ONLY WAY you determine if you can attach "your cure" to mutated gene is to have the patient in YOUR FACILITY for testing. Can't do that by flying over to lay a stethoscope on the child. The answer is a simple yes/no. Because it's RESEARCH and it's custom to EVERY patient. There is a reasonable that if you can "find the hooks" in that particular patient's DNA to DELIVER THE CURE -- that it will work the same way for a large VARIETY of mutations involved. That's the science and I'm somewhat familar with the ways that OTHER cures are customized for MYRIADS of mutations of the same general disease. 

That's WHY it's not ready for prime time. And that is what NHS is scared to DEATH about having the public demand. But we won't GET THERE --- until the research progresses. And NHS isn't favorable to having SOME folks be able to avail themselves to this research. 

Are we CLEAR NOW? Do you understand WHY Charlie HAD to go to the US for evaluation?


----------



## Coyote

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is where you are wrong. Mitochondrial diseases are not one disease, they are a collection of diseases with different mutations involved and they run the gamut from extremely severe (Charlie) to less severe. Charlie's was determined to be one of the most severe. The other child who was helped had a DIFFERENT mutation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've told you six times,, now seven.  The ONLY WAY you determine if you can attach "your cure" to mutated gene is to have the patient in YOUR FACILITY for testing. Can't do that by flying over to lay a stethoscope on the child. The answer is a simple yes/no. Because it's RESEARCH and it's custom to EVERY patient. There is a reasonable that if you can "find the hooks" in that particular patient's DNA to DELIVER THE CURE -- that it will work the same way for a large VARIETY of mutations involved. That's the science and I'm somewhat familar with the ways that OTHER cures are customized for MYRIADS of mutations of the same general disease.
> 
> That's WHY it's not ready for prime time. And that is what NHS is scared to DEATH about having the public demand. But we won't GET THERE --- until the research progresses. And NHS isn't favorable to having SOME folks be able to avail themselves to this research.
> 
> Are we CLEAR NOW? Do you understand WHY Charlie HAD to go to the US for evaluation?
Click to expand...


The NHS has no problem with utilizing research.  In fact they are no different then AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANIES in that regard - and people can go outside of the system if they have the money.  THIS ISN'T ABOUT NHS.

This particular research WASN'T and WOULDN'T be tailored to Charlie's mutation - it was tailored to another mutatio.  There was no talk - none - about making it specific to Charlie.  It was using what was used for the other patients and we only know the result of ONE of those.


----------



## flacaltenn

Coyote said:


> And you are talking about having a terminally ill child on life support making a transatlantic flight.
> 
> You are right - we and the world have no right to be arguing over it - it's between his parents, the doctors and the UK courts.



This is all standard practice. Done all the time. There are special airlifts for patients who are completely on life support. NOT an issue. There IS a risk. But it's an acceptable one. AND -- with the publicity of this case -- almost CERTAINLY, some individual or Org would have sponsored the flight. And the return flight if necessary.  Trump himself would have sent a Military Air Ambulance flight. That would further infuriate you --- wouldn't it?   

Shouldn't be a case of BEGGING THE COURT for permission to treat.. THe issue was this treatment was able to be denied -- even tho -- it's valid science, it gave the kid a chance and NHS had already decided to kill him..

Should be between the PARENTS and the doctors -- period. It's NOWHERE NEAR "child abuse".  It's as far from that as you can get. It's unbounded LOVE and COMMITMENT..


----------



## Coyote

And NO.  Charlie did not have to go to the US for an EVALUATION.  He was already at a top rate facility.


----------



## flacaltenn

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> *WHO should make decisions? It sounds like you are saying it should always be the parents. In that case - what about the articles I cited?* It's not even right vs left. POLITICIANS are turning it into right/left arguments. It isn't - it's an ethics argument, with the parents on one side and the medical community on the other and the child in the middle. It NEVER WAS a POLITICAL argument until AMERICAN partisans got into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has EVERYTHING to do with tribal warfare. Pitting ONE SIDE that reflexively gives that Power to the State in ALL CASES --- against the other side who reserves the elements of Liberty Freedom and CHOICE to sovereign individuals. The way that classic Liberals wanted it to be. Leftists have the fear of concentrated power bred right out of their souls. Because of the arrogance of believing that THEY are wiser, more compassionate and wiser than the rest of us. This is NOT the classic Liberal attitude where a fear of the STATE becoming your Nanny was real thing.   Ask Thoreau -- he'll tell you...
> 
> And this case demonstrates what can happen in a country where parents are STRIPPED of all Guardianship rights and have to BEG and PLEAD for EVERY concession..  Is that REALLY what you intend? Because that is apparently the case NOW in the UK.  Thank Gawd that in the in the US any proposed law that would A PRIORY strip parental guardianship would be unconstitutional.
> 
> Leaving YOUR CLAN to decide -- child abuse would soon extend to the PopTarts at breakfast and the Sunday School requirement. While making it hunky-dory to take your 10 yr old to a Gay Pride parade for the humping, wagging wieners, and bouncy tits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For heaven's sakes - you are totally exagerating.  It's not about effing clans.
> *
> NO ONE is talking about stripping parents of ALL guardianship rights either.*
> 
> Let me know when you want to talk about what *ACTUALLY is happening*.  Otherwise I'm done.
Click to expand...


That's what happened in this case. Because of the perverse laws in the UK.  Parents are not even considered Guardians for juvenile legal proceedings there (apparently).  And certainly, they are stripped of parental Guardianship in choice of Doctors and venues of treatment by the socialized health system.


----------



## Coyote

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are talking about having a terminally ill child on life support making a transatlantic flight.
> 
> You are right - we and the world have no right to be arguing over it - it's between his parents, the doctors and the UK courts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is all standard practice. Done all the time. There are special airlifts for patients who are completely on life support. NOT an issue. There IS a risk. But it's an acceptable one. AND -- with the publicity of this case -- almost CERTAINLY, some individual or Org would have sponsored the flight. And the return flight if necessary.  Trump himself would have sent a Military Air Ambulance flight. That would further infuriate you --- wouldn't it?
> 
> Shouldn't be a case of BEGGING THE COURT for permission to treat.. THe issue was this treatment was able to be denied -- even tho -*- it's valid science, it gave the kid a chance and NHS had already decided to kill him*..
> 
> Should be between the PARENTS and the doctors -- period. It's NOWHERE NEAR "child abuse".  It's as far from that as you can get. It's unbounded LOVE and COMMITMENT..
Click to expand...


Bullshit.

It's not "valid science" yet - it's so experimental it's not even in clinical trials.  In the US you have to get legal permission to try something so experimental on a patient but go ahead and blame it on NHS as if it were different.  It's not.  They didn't "decide to kill him" - he was severely brain damaged, had organ damage and was kept alive only on life support.

But hey - keep cheering on Trump if that is what you wish to make it about effing politics instead of medical ethics.


----------



## Coyote

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> *WHO should make decisions? It sounds like you are saying it should always be the parents. In that case - what about the articles I cited?* It's not even right vs left. POLITICIANS are turning it into right/left arguments. It isn't - it's an ethics argument, with the parents on one side and the medical community on the other and the child in the middle. It NEVER WAS a POLITICAL argument until AMERICAN partisans got into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has EVERYTHING to do with tribal warfare. Pitting ONE SIDE that reflexively gives that Power to the State in ALL CASES --- against the other side who reserves the elements of Liberty Freedom and CHOICE to sovereign individuals. The way that classic Liberals wanted it to be. Leftists have the fear of concentrated power bred right out of their souls. Because of the arrogance of believing that THEY are wiser, more compassionate and wiser than the rest of us. This is NOT the classic Liberal attitude where a fear of the STATE becoming your Nanny was real thing.   Ask Thoreau -- he'll tell you...
> 
> And this case demonstrates what can happen in a country where parents are STRIPPED of all Guardianship rights and have to BEG and PLEAD for EVERY concession..  Is that REALLY what you intend? Because that is apparently the case NOW in the UK.  Thank Gawd that in the in the US any proposed law that would A PRIORY strip parental guardianship would be unconstitutional.
> 
> Leaving YOUR CLAN to decide -- child abuse would soon extend to the PopTarts at breakfast and the Sunday School requirement. While making it hunky-dory to take your 10 yr old to a Gay Pride parade for the humping, wagging wieners, and bouncy tits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For heaven's sakes - you are totally exagerating.  It's not about effing clans.
> *
> NO ONE is talking about stripping parents of ALL guardianship rights either.*
> 
> Let me know when you want to talk about what *ACTUALLY is happening*.  Otherwise I'm done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what happened in this case. Because of the perverse laws in the UK.  Parents are not even considered Guardians for juvenile legal proceedings there (apparently).  And certainly, they are stripped of parental Guardianship in choice of Doctors and venues of treatment by the socialized health system.
Click to expand...


Right.  Just like religious nuts are allowed their rights because they want "treat" their cancer stricken children with "prayer" instead of "conventional" medical treatment because of perverse laws in the US.


----------



## flacaltenn

Coyote said:


> And NO.  Charlie did not have to go to the US for an EVALUATION.  He was already at a top rate facility.



You don't understand the science then of what these researchers are doing. It takes about 10 skilled people and a lot of SPECIALIZED equipment to determine how to attack any mutational variation of the illness you are trying to cure. Just 10 minutes more or less "bake time"  in ONE STEP of the process -- ruins the evaluation. That's WHY it's so specialized. 

That's WHY -- this type of procedure needs to have the patient IN the facility.  You can deny that all you want. But that's how it works.


----------



## flacaltenn

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> *WHO should make decisions? It sounds like you are saying it should always be the parents. In that case - what about the articles I cited?* It's not even right vs left. POLITICIANS are turning it into right/left arguments. It isn't - it's an ethics argument, with the parents on one side and the medical community on the other and the child in the middle. It NEVER WAS a POLITICAL argument until AMERICAN partisans got into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has EVERYTHING to do with tribal warfare. Pitting ONE SIDE that reflexively gives that Power to the State in ALL CASES --- against the other side who reserves the elements of Liberty Freedom and CHOICE to sovereign individuals. The way that classic Liberals wanted it to be. Leftists have the fear of concentrated power bred right out of their souls. Because of the arrogance of believing that THEY are wiser, more compassionate and wiser than the rest of us. This is NOT the classic Liberal attitude where a fear of the STATE becoming your Nanny was real thing.   Ask Thoreau -- he'll tell you...
> 
> And this case demonstrates what can happen in a country where parents are STRIPPED of all Guardianship rights and have to BEG and PLEAD for EVERY concession..  Is that REALLY what you intend? Because that is apparently the case NOW in the UK.  Thank Gawd that in the in the US any proposed law that would A PRIORY strip parental guardianship would be unconstitutional.
> 
> Leaving YOUR CLAN to decide -- child abuse would soon extend to the PopTarts at breakfast and the Sunday School requirement. While making it hunky-dory to take your 10 yr old to a Gay Pride parade for the humping, wagging wieners, and bouncy tits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For heaven's sakes - you are totally exagerating.  It's not about effing clans.
> *
> NO ONE is talking about stripping parents of ALL guardianship rights either.*
> 
> Let me know when you want to talk about what *ACTUALLY is happening*.  Otherwise I'm done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what happened in this case. Because of the perverse laws in the UK.  Parents are not even considered Guardians for juvenile legal proceedings there (apparently).  And certainly, they are stripped of parental Guardianship in choice of Doctors and venues of treatment by the socialized health system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.  Just like religious nuts are allowed their rights because they want "treat" their cancer stricken children with "prayer" instead of "conventional" medical treatment because of perverse laws in the US.
Click to expand...


A lot of ADULTS treat themselves with prayer in cancer cases. ESPECIALLY for protocols with low chances of success and near lethal doses. That's a personal choice. Has nothing to do with being "blinded by the light".


----------



## Coyote

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And NO.  Charlie did not have to go to the US for an EVALUATION.  He was already at a top rate facility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand the science then of what these researchers are doing. It takes about 10 skilled people and a lot of SPECIALIZED equipment to determine how to attack any mutational variation of the illness you are trying to cure. Just 10 minutes more or less "bake time"  in ONE STEP of the process -- ruins the evaluation. That's WHY it's so specialized.
> 
> That's WHY -- this type of procedure needs to have the patient IN the facility.  You can deny that all you want. But that's how it works.
Click to expand...


It is so specialized that his treatment is DESIGNED to treat ONE SPECIFIC MUTATION only - he's not developed any other and THAT is what he was going to use.  He wasn't developing another one.


----------



## Coyote

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> *WHO should make decisions? It sounds like you are saying it should always be the parents. In that case - what about the articles I cited?* It's not even right vs left. POLITICIANS are turning it into right/left arguments. It isn't - it's an ethics argument, with the parents on one side and the medical community on the other and the child in the middle. It NEVER WAS a POLITICAL argument until AMERICAN partisans got into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has EVERYTHING to do with tribal warfare. Pitting ONE SIDE that reflexively gives that Power to the State in ALL CASES --- against the other side who reserves the elements of Liberty Freedom and CHOICE to sovereign individuals. The way that classic Liberals wanted it to be. Leftists have the fear of concentrated power bred right out of their souls. Because of the arrogance of believing that THEY are wiser, more compassionate and wiser than the rest of us. This is NOT the classic Liberal attitude where a fear of the STATE becoming your Nanny was real thing.   Ask Thoreau -- he'll tell you...
> 
> And this case demonstrates what can happen in a country where parents are STRIPPED of all Guardianship rights and have to BEG and PLEAD for EVERY concession..  Is that REALLY what you intend? Because that is apparently the case NOW in the UK.  Thank Gawd that in the in the US any proposed law that would A PRIORY strip parental guardianship would be unconstitutional.
> 
> Leaving YOUR CLAN to decide -- child abuse would soon extend to the PopTarts at breakfast and the Sunday School requirement. While making it hunky-dory to take your 10 yr old to a Gay Pride parade for the humping, wagging wieners, and bouncy tits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For heaven's sakes - you are totally exagerating.  It's not about effing clans.
> *
> NO ONE is talking about stripping parents of ALL guardianship rights either.*
> 
> Let me know when you want to talk about what *ACTUALLY is happening*.  Otherwise I'm done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what happened in this case. Because of the perverse laws in the UK.  Parents are not even considered Guardians for juvenile legal proceedings there (apparently).  And certainly, they are stripped of parental Guardianship in choice of Doctors and venues of treatment by the socialized health system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.  Just like religious nuts are allowed their rights because they want "treat" their cancer stricken children with "prayer" instead of "conventional" medical treatment because of perverse laws in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of ADULTS treat themselves with prayer in cancer cases. ESPECIALLY for protocols with low chances of success and near lethal doses. That's a personal choice. Has nothing to do with being "blinded by the light".
Click to expand...


There is a difference between treating themselves and making that choice for a child.

Just like it has nothing to do with being "blinded by the light"...neither do medical choices made for Charlie have to do with being "blinded by politics".


----------



## flacaltenn

Coyote said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently NOT.  Because Charlie's parents  RAISED the money and would have gotten LOTS of help on Life Flights and things like that. So OBVIOUSLY, even with the MONEY -- *the State OWNED that child*. That's the outrage. Evidently -- you're immune from obvious and want to defend the indefensible any way that you can..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not defending the indefensible.
> 
> You're trying to make this something it's not.
> 
> Parents do not OWN a child either.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah we do. You on the left are under the impression they belong to society....you couldn't be more wrong.
> 
> Keep your paws off of them, cease your indoctrinatin of them, stop with sexulation of them with this gay, trans, etc. BS.
> 
> You want a war? That's  a damn good way to get one. I know plenty of parents...we're weary of you people.
> 
> The parents of Charlie Gard AND Charlie Gard were wronged.
> 
> That's a fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want a fight with you Sassy.
> 
> But what happens when parents are wrong?
> 
> 
> btw...sexualization of children?  Maybe you should look at those child pagents.
> 
> That too is "you people".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh good grief, yeah we're teaching them gay and trans shit in preschool.
> 
> Keep your paws off of them.
> 
> There is a saying, the most dangerous place in the world...between a mother and her childten.
> 
> Heed it. I live it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what about child pagents?  Photographers who SEXUALIZE children? I'm more worried about that then I am about gay and trans stuff.
> 
> Isn't there something TERRIBLY wrong with this?  But it's MAINSTREAM!
Click to expand...


It's a concern. It's distastful to many. Me included. But TOLERANCE of things that irk you is the BASIS of a free country. Do a study. Find out if these kids are warped by it. Find out if the PARENTS are themselves crazy. If not -- don't worry about it. 

If every dress up picture starts to be painted as "pervert bait" -- then we lose a lot of freedom. 

Parents make their kids do a LOT of things -- sometimes more for the benefit of the parents. Like torturing kids with music lessons or insisting on playing sports. It's not ALL de facto child abuse.


----------



## flacaltenn

Coyote said:


> There is a difference between treating themselves and making that choice for a child.



It MIGHT be different in that a parent would err to SPARE the child the horrendous "therapy" of Chemo. Whereas they might consider it more of an option for an older relative. But it's the same process. And individuals shouldn't be FORCED into Chemotherapy or have their children FORCED into chemotherapy in all cases. 

The idea of them dying INNOCENT and unaware of that torture --- might appeal in a lot of marginal cases. Isn't the State's call..


----------



## flacaltenn

Coyote said:


> My feelings are this.
> 
> As a society we are ALL responsible for the children in our society.  We all contribute to pay for their education and welfare, and if their parents fail or fall, we all SHOULD be willing to do what is necessary to pick up the pieces and help them.
> 
> And as you know, I don't have children but that doesn't diminish my responsibility.
> 
> In the pictures you (Lucy) show above my feeling is this.  Children should be taught to be COMPASSIONATE of all humanity.  To not judge on outward appearances.  Is that indoctrination?
> 
> On the other hand, parents should not sexualize children.  Children are too young to make gender determinations and parents should NOT make them for them.  They should be understanding, compassionate and STAND BY their children.  If, after puberty, the child's choice is not his biological assignment, I hope the parents understand and love that child all the more.  Is that to alien a concept?
> 
> On sexualizing children - LOOK AT BEAUTY PAGENTS - it's disgusting.  Children masquerading as fully sexualized adults.  It's so wrong.  Let them be children.  Don't force gender choices on them and don't turn them into sexual beings before they need to be



Agree fully. Just don't CRIMINALIZE those choices. Work to educate people of the side effects. ESPECIALLY about placing pre-puberty kids in trans therapy.


----------



## flacaltenn

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And NO.  Charlie did not have to go to the US for an EVALUATION.  He was already at a top rate facility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand the science then of what these researchers are doing. It takes about 10 skilled people and a lot of SPECIALIZED equipment to determine how to attack any mutational variation of the illness you are trying to cure. Just 10 minutes more or less "bake time"  in ONE STEP of the process -- ruins the evaluation. That's WHY it's so specialized.
> 
> That's WHY -- this type of procedure needs to have the patient IN the facility.  You can deny that all you want. But that's how it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is so specialized that his treatment is DESIGNED to treat ONE SPECIFIC MUTATION only - he's not developed any other and THAT is what he was going to use.  He wasn't developing another one.
Click to expand...


No.. That's not true. That's what all this customized gene therapy is all about. You find a way to attack the general defect, but you have to customize the "delivery" and specific DNA patching for the patient. Sometimes you succeed, other times you don't. At least right now.  Dr Hirano has saved 16 or 18 kids with various MUTATIONS of the same general defect.  *It's much like writing anti-virus code software.  But in DNA chemistry. You've seen the GENERAL malware before, but you might have to change a couple lines of software code to kill THIS one*.  My daughter did this same song and dance working at one of the best pediatric neural disease research centers in America. Some processes were mature and covered a lot of patients. Other newer ones had to have a LOT of customization. 

At SOME point -- you stop seeing a lot of mutations that are NEW to you. That's when you can shift gears and try to "generalize" the approach..

The customization part isn't evaluated or DESIGNED by flying to England.


----------



## JoeB131

flacaltenn said:


> EVIDENTLY children are property of the STATE in the UK. That's one Clinton "Village" I would FLEE from. Not only were Charlies parents not in the Guardian position with regards to his health care, but STATE APPARENTLY takes the Guardian position in any LEGAL trials.
> 
> Is THAT the "Village" -- you leftists want to create here? Good damn luck with that.



Uh, dude, that's the village most of us want. We certainly don't want parents who put their children in danger or prolong their suffering, like Jehovah's Witlesses not wanting their kids to get blood transfusions or snake handlers exposing their kids to poisonous snakes.  

The question here was were they prolonging Charlie's suffering to have a hope of recovery (there was none) or were they prolonging it so the parents could feel better.  Obviously the latter. 

Again- in the "AMerican" village, a big insurance company would have cut off treatment and all you nutters wouldn't be sending money to the parents.


----------



## PredFan

irosie91 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to one-up your stupid statement with a childish statement? Interesting strategy but it fell short I'm afraid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually there was nothing stupid about my statement-----it is something I learned from my older brother--LONG AGO-----he is a Professor of astrophysics-----much acclaimed and,  in fact,  a recipient of the president's  Freedom award for his contributions to the field of Astrophysics and NASA------and you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, either you are a liar, or your brother is an idiot. Statistics is part of science but it isn't all of science. That's just stupid. I don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> actually----you are wrong and he is right.    -----statistical analysis rules every branch of science-----and CERTAINLY ASTROPHYSICS------and psychiatrists are stuck with it----not easy for them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> I imagine it plays a larger part in some sciences than it does in others, but it doesn't play a large part in medicine, which is what we are talking about. Oh sure, there are statistics but that isn't medicine. We treat patients as individuals. That's why we are better than socialized medicine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sheeeeehs------stats are not important in medicine-?     how do you IMAGINE  "normal"  Na levels
> are determined?---------every time you check a slip from the lab--------you are looking at a  STAT
Click to expand...


Dude stop, you are saying one stupid thing after another. Sodium levels and the levels of all of the rest of the electrolytes, are not based in statistics. They are based on chemistry. We know the range of electrolytes in which the human body's organs need to function. There is a slight variance from person to person but it's an actual range, not a mathematical calculation, which you may not know is what statistics are.

Slips from the lab are actual measurements. They are not statistics at all.

Time for you to man up and admit you are wrong. If you chose not to then we have nothing more to discuss. Your ignorant statements are boring me.


----------



## irosie91

PredFan said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually there was nothing stupid about my statement-----it is something I learned from my older brother--LONG AGO-----he is a Professor of astrophysics-----much acclaimed and,  in fact,  a recipient of the president's  Freedom award for his contributions to the field of Astrophysics and NASA------and you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, either you are a liar, or your brother is an idiot. Statistics is part of science but it isn't all of science. That's just stupid. I don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> actually----you are wrong and he is right.    -----statistical analysis rules every branch of science-----and CERTAINLY ASTROPHYSICS------and psychiatrists are stuck with it----not easy for them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> I imagine it plays a larger part in some sciences than it does in others, but it doesn't play a large part in medicine, which is what we are talking about. Oh sure, there are statistics but that isn't medicine. We treat patients as individuals. That's why we are better than socialized medicine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sheeeeehs------stats are not important in medicine-?     how do you IMAGINE  "normal"  Na levels
> are determined?---------every time you check a slip from the lab--------you are looking at a  STAT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude stop, you are saying one stupid thing after another. Sodium levels and the levels of all of the rest of the electrolytes, are not based in statistics. They are based on chemistry. We know the range of electrolytes in which the human body's organs need to function. There is a slight variance from person to person but it's an actual range, not a mathematical calculation, which you may not know is what statistics are.
> 
> Slips from the lab are actual measurements. They are not statistics at all.
> 
> Time for you to man up and admit you are wrong. If you chose not to then we have nothing more to discuss. Your ignorant statements are boring me.
Click to expand...



wrong again you JERK-----the actual NORMS  used in the practice of medicine are based on the
measurements of a SAMPLING OF HEALTHY SUBJECTS---------NOT---as you imagine in your
idiot deluded mind-------"well  ---"we"  always knew the optimum levels of various substances  that
ARE IDEAL for OPTIMUM function in  DA HUMAN BEAN"         gee you are stupid. -------it is ok----
you just do not know.      I will help you------do you know what   "STANDARD DEVIATION"  means? 

the reality is that "normal"   of the various substances in the body are determined by that being
WITHIN  two standard deviations ----from the STATISTICAL NORM  (got that  ??  "statistical" norm) 
You should learn this fact BEFORE attempting to apply to medical school


----------



## PredFan

irosie91 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, either you are a liar, or your brother is an idiot. Statistics is part of science but it isn't all of science. That's just stupid. I don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually----you are wrong and he is right.    -----statistical analysis rules every branch of science-----and CERTAINLY ASTROPHYSICS------and psychiatrists are stuck with it----not easy for them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> I imagine it plays a larger part in some sciences than it does in others, but it doesn't play a large part in medicine, which is what we are talking about. Oh sure, there are statistics but that isn't medicine. We treat patients as individuals. That's why we are better than socialized medicine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sheeeeehs------stats are not important in medicine-?     how do you IMAGINE  "normal"  Na levels
> are determined?---------every time you check a slip from the lab--------you are looking at a  STAT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude stop, you are saying one stupid thing after another. Sodium levels and the levels of all of the rest of the electrolytes, are not based in statistics. They are based on chemistry. We know the range of electrolytes in which the human body's organs need to function. There is a slight variance from person to person but it's an actual range, not a mathematical calculation, which you may not know is what statistics are.
> 
> Slips from the lab are actual measurements. They are not statistics at all.
> 
> Time for you to man up and admit you are wrong. If you chose not to then we have nothing more to discuss. Your ignorant statements are boring me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again you JERK-----the actual NORMS  used in the practice of medicine are based on the
> measurements of a SAMPLING OF HEALTHY SUBJECTS---------NOT---as you imagine in your
> idiot deluded mind-------"well  ---"we"  always knew the optimum levels of various substances  that
> ARE IDEAL for OPTIMUM function in  DA HUMAN BEAN"         gee you are stupid. -------it is ok----
> you just do not know.      I will help you------do you know what   "STANDARD DEVIATION"  means?
> 
> the reality is that "normal"   of the various substances in the body are determined by that being
> WITHIN  two standard deviations ----from the STATISTICAL NORM  (got that  ??  "statistical" norm)
> You should learn this fact BEFORE attempting to apply to medical school
Click to expand...


Stupid and wrong, your ignorant bull shit is boring me to death. Dismissed.


----------



## flacaltenn

JoeB131 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> EVIDENTLY children are property of the STATE in the UK. That's one Clinton "Village" I would FLEE from. Not only were Charlies parents not in the Guardian position with regards to his health care, but STATE APPARENTLY takes the Guardian position in any LEGAL trials.
> 
> Is THAT the "Village" -- you leftists want to create here? Good damn luck with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, dude, that's the village most of us want. We certainly don't want parents who put their children in danger or prolong their suffering, like Jehovah's Witlesses not wanting their kids to get blood transfusions or snake handlers exposing their kids to poisonous snakes.
> 
> The question here was were they prolonging Charlie's suffering to have a hope of recovery (there was none) or were they prolonging it so the parents could feel better.  Obviously the latter.
> 
> Again- in the "AMerican" village, a big insurance company would have cut off treatment and all you nutters wouldn't be sending money to the parents.
Click to expand...


So you usurp EVERY parents guardianship rights and NEVER WORRY that the term "child abuse" will be expanded beyond "snake handling" and Jehovah's Witnesses.  That's pretty dumb. And not acceptable to GIVE that much power to State that can barely govern anymore and is subject to cataclysmic oscillations of power.

I don't want Schumer and McConnell being the oversight on my personal decisions. You didnt even think thru your assertion about Private Insurance under Single Payer. It does not say MULTIPLE payer. And in order to AFFORD anything close to that -- you're gonna have to rip greater than 15% MORE in FICA out of EVERY workers wallets. So --- How many folks you think would be EXEMPT from the "Single Payer" tax? And who GETS those exemptions?  It's another "trust us" UNIVERSAL program that will be pilfered and robbed, neglected and mismanaged by Congress and the Exec. After watching them steal from the SS Trust Fund for 30 years and DO NOTHING about the Baby Boomers -- this Village of yours with the "WISE ELDERS" just is gonna stay in the Fantasy section of the Book Listings.


----------



## JoeB131

flacaltenn said:


> So you usurp EVERY parents guardianship rights and NEVER WORRY that the term "child abuse" will be expanded beyond "snake handling" and Jehovah's Witnesses. That's pretty dumb. And not acceptable to GIVE that much power to State that can barely govern anymore and is subject to cataclysmic oscillations of power.



I think the standard we have now is pretty good. The state can step in if the parent's actions are reckless or causing harm.  

In this case, the parents were acting emotionally, not logically.  Therefore, it was appropriate for the state to step in. 



flacaltenn said:


> I don't want Schumer and McConnell being the oversight on my personal decisions.



Neither do I, and no one suggested that. 



flacaltenn said:


> You didnt even think thru your assertion about Private Insurance under Single Payer. It does not say MULTIPLE payer. And in order to AFFORD anything close to that -- you're gonna have to rip greater than 15% MORE in FICA out of EVERY workers wallets. So --- How many folks you think would be EXEMPT from the "Single Payer" tax?



Here's the real question, what would a single payer cost us?  Well, what is Multi-payer costing us?  Right now, Medical Spending in the US is about 17% of GDP.  Most of us don't see that because the cost is hidden in various ways.  For instance, since our employers pay for our health insurance, which usually costs $5000-10,000 a year, that's already 10%+ of our earnings, depending on how much you make. We pay about 2% of our income on Medicare.  Plus a large chunk of the taxes we already pay go to Medicaid, SCHIP, the VA, and so on. 

Easily making your 15%. 

The difference is, with single payer, with government setting costs, without the middle men not adding value like dividends to shareholders and Ed Hanaway's NINE FIGURE retirement package, the cost goes down... 

WHich is why the UK spends only about 9.1% of GDP on health care compared to the US, which spends 17.1%.  True, the UK doesn't have fancy marble floors in their hospitals, but everyone is covered and they get better results than we do.  



flacaltenn said:


> And who GETS those exemptions? It's another "trust us" UNIVERSAL program that will be pilfered and robbed, neglected and mismanaged by Congress and the Exec. After watching them steal from the SS Trust Fund for 30 years and DO NOTHING about the Baby Boomers -- this Village of yours with the "WISE ELDERS" just is gonna stay in the Fantasy section of the Book Listings.



Look, buddy, the Rich are always going to do better than the rest of us. 

As for social security, the problem there is that we aren't putting enough replacement workers into the system.  Also, people are living longer, which was never taken into account.  While the whole notion of converting the SS Trust funds into bonds was dubious, that's not the real problem here.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Why would anyone think that Britian's health care system has better results than ours?  Their system is abysmal.


----------



## Coyote

Tipsycatlover said:


> Why would anyone think that Britian's health care system has better results than ours?  Their system is abysmal.



Yet they don't seem to want ours.


----------



## JoeB131

Tipsycatlover said:


> Why would anyone think that Britian's health care system has better results than ours?  Their system is abysmal.



why would I think that. 

United Kingdom vs United States: Health Facts and Stats

well, life expectency in the UK is 80 years vs. 78 in the US. 

Infant mortality is 3.88 compared to 6.06 in the US. 

In fact, the UK beats us in almost every major statistic on the list.  

Now, their hospitals aren't as fancy... but a fancy hospital you can't access because your insurance won't cover it doesn't do you a shitload of good.


----------



## irosie91

JoeB131 said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone think that Britian's health care system has better results than ours?  Their system is abysmal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why would I think that.
> 
> United Kingdom vs United States: Health Facts and Stats
> 
> well, life expectency in the UK is 80 years vs. 78 in the US.
> 
> Infant mortality is 3.88 compared to 6.06 in the US.
> 
> In fact, the UK beats us in almost every major statistic on the list.
> 
> Now, their hospitals aren't as fancy... but a fancy hospital you can't access because your insurance won't cover it doesn't do you a shitload of good.
Click to expand...


the US has a very diverse and somewhat STRESSED population----which is socially unstable.    With
the increasing immigrant population, it is likely that some health issues in England will result in some
changes in the stats------most notably---infant mortality AND life expectancy.   ---the factors that
contribute to both life expectancy and infant mortality are VERY COMPLEX  which is why they
as so often cited as  "quality of life"  issues.     I do not believe that they reflect  functionality of
THE SYSTEM as much as general quality of life OVER ALL.   "Overall"    covers LOTS OF 
VERY DIFFERENT groups in countries like the US-----more than in countries like England,   or 
Sweden,   or   Holland  or Germany---------the more VERY DIFFERENT groups around----the more
complex are the issues and---the stats


----------



## JoeB131

irosie91 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone think that Britian's health care system has better results than ours?  Their system is abysmal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why would I think that.
> 
> United Kingdom vs United States: Health Facts and Stats
> 
> well, life expectency in the UK is 80 years vs. 78 in the US.
> 
> Infant mortality is 3.88 compared to 6.06 in the US.
> 
> In fact, the UK beats us in almost every major statistic on the list.
> 
> Now, their hospitals aren't as fancy... but a fancy hospital you can't access because your insurance won't cover it doesn't do you a shitload of good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the US has a very diverse and somewhat STRESSED population----which is socially unstable.    With
> the increasing immigrant population, it is likely that some health issues in England will result in some
> changes in the stats------most notably---infant mortality AND life expectancy.   ---the factors that
> contribute to both life expectancy and infant mortality are VERY COMPLEX  which is why they
> as so often cited as  "quality of life"  issues.     I do not believe that they reflect  functionality of
> THE SYSTEM as much as general quality of life OVER ALL.   "Overall"    covers LOTS OF
> VERY DIFFERENT groups in countries like the US-----more than in countries like England,   or
> Sweden,   or   Holland  or Germany---------the more VERY DIFFERENT groups around----the more
> complex are the issues and---the stats
Click to expand...


Someone should have introduced you to the concept of Occam's Razor at an early age. 

The difference between the US and all those other countries is that the US considers health coverage to be a product available to your ability to afford it and those other countries consider it an entitlement all citizens are entitled to.  

So, yes, when you can get in to see a doctor when you are sick and not having to worry about being so sick that you don't care how much it's going to cost you to fix it and hope you can tough it out, you are more likely to get problems fixed.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

You can't get in to see a doctor when you are sick in these countries with socialized medicine.  It's like the VA.  You are put on an appointment list.   You see the doctor when your appointment gets scheduled.


----------



## irosie91

JoeB131 said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone think that Britian's health care system has better results than ours?  Their system is abysmal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why would I think that.
> 
> United Kingdom vs United States: Health Facts and Stats
> 
> well, life expectency in the UK is 80 years vs. 78 in the US.
> 
> Infant mortality is 3.88 compared to 6.06 in the US.
> 
> In fact, the UK beats us in almost every major statistic on the list.
> 
> Now, their hospitals aren't as fancy... but a fancy hospital you can't access because your insurance won't cover it doesn't do you a shitload of good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the US has a very diverse and somewhat STRESSED population----which is socially unstable.    With
> the increasing immigrant population, it is likely that some health issues in England will result in some
> changes in the stats------most notably---infant mortality AND life expectancy.   ---the factors that
> contribute to both life expectancy and infant mortality are VERY COMPLEX  which is why they
> as so often cited as  "quality of life"  issues.     I do not believe that they reflect  functionality of
> THE SYSTEM as much as general quality of life OVER ALL.   "Overall"    covers LOTS OF
> VERY DIFFERENT groups in countries like the US-----more than in countries like England,   or
> Sweden,   or   Holland  or Germany---------the more VERY DIFFERENT groups around----the more
> complex are the issues and---the stats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone should have introduced you to the concept of Occam's Razor at an early age.
> 
> The difference between the US and all those other countries is that the US considers health coverage to be a product available to your ability to afford it and those other countries consider it an entitlement all citizens are entitled to.
> 
> So, yes, when you can get in to see a doctor when you are sick and not having to worry about being so sick that you don't care how much it's going to cost you to fix it and hope you can tough it out, you are more likely to get problems fixed.
Click to expand...


sorry bubele------I know all about it------I even know as in family relationships people
who are the patients of those systems and know as in colleagues ---persons who work
within those systems.     All the systems got their ups and downs----most people who
do KNOW----admit that the USA system is NOT INFERIOR to them socialized systems regarding
access and availability for the general population----with the possible exception of some of the northern countries---those countries which are NOW  facing demographic horrors-------with which England has been
grappling for more than 50 years.       For the record-----emergency rooms cannot LEGALLY throw you
into the gutter to die--------in the USA


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Tipsycatlover said:


> You can't get in to see a doctor when you are sick in these countries with socialized medicine.  It's like the VA.  You are put on an appointment list.   You see the doctor when your appointment gets scheduled.


I never have a problem seeing my Dr. Maybe I  am just lucky. What is your experience ?


----------



## irosie91

Tommy Tainant said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't get in to see a doctor when you are sick in these countries with socialized medicine.  It's like the VA.  You are put on an appointment list.   You see the doctor when your appointment gets scheduled.
> 
> 
> 
> I never have a problem seeing my Dr. Maybe I  am just lucky. What is your experience ?
Click to expand...


just SEEING A DOCTOR----the issue in the socialized systems are SPECIALIZED PROCEDURES------it can take months for simple but NEEDED   'elective surgeries"  in the UK.     Just hang out and suffer


----------



## JoeB131

Tipsycatlover said:


> You can't get in to see a doctor when you are sick in these countries with socialized medicine.  It's like the VA.  You are put on an appointment list.   You see the doctor when your appointment gets scheduled.



again, how is that different from corporate medicine. I had to wait two weeks to get an appointment for my blood pressure.  

I agree, the VA has a problem is that when the warmongers started another war for the Jews and Oil Companies, they didn't take into account how much more care the VA would have to provide in some locations.


----------

