Charlie Gard has passed

[Carl in Michigan]

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]

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.

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]

[

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?

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.

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.

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]

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]

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?

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]

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.

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

.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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]

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

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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....

Well it should be. In part at least.

 

[PredFan]

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?

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.)

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]

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..

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..

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.

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.