Charlie Gard has passed

[Tommy Tainant]

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]

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]

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.)

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]

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.)

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[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]

..

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]

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.

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 ?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

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.

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 ?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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.

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 ?

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]

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.

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 ?

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.

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.