Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It is the government who said they couldn't take the kid.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.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.There are parents who would deny their children treatment because of their own personal religious beliefs. Who speaks up for the child then ?People arent property and the rights of the child outweigh those of the parents. Its not a difficult concept to grasp.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.
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.
Are you really saying that the Drs at GOSH would deliberately deny the child treatment that might save him ?
This isnt America you know.
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.
It is the government who said they couldn't take the kid.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.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.There are parents who would deny their children treatment because of their own personal religious beliefs. Who speaks up for the child then ?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.
Are you really saying that the Drs at GOSH would deliberately deny the child treatment that might save him ?
This isnt America you know.
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!"
It is the government who said they couldn't take the kid.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.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.There are parents who would deny their children treatment because of their own personal religious beliefs. Who speaks up for the child then ?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.
Are you really saying that the Drs at GOSH would deliberately deny the child treatment that might save him ?
This isnt America you know.
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!"
Dumb statement. You are such a disgusting hateful personThis is a day of celebration among the death cultists! Baby killers, rejoice!
People arent property and the rights of the child outweigh those of the parents. Its not a difficult concept to grasp.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.
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.
There are parents who would deny their children treatment because of their own personal religious beliefs. Who speaks up for the child then ?People arent property and the rights of the child outweigh those of the parents. Its not a difficult concept to grasp.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.
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.
How do you come to that conclusion? Pretty stupid conclusion, BTWkoshergrl 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
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.
Dumb statement. You are such a disgusting hateful personThis is a day of celebration among the death cultists! Baby killers, rejoice!
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
Dumb statement. You are such a disgusting hateful personThis is a day of celebration among the death cultists! Baby killers, rejoice!
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
Dumb statement. You are such a disgusting hateful personThis is a day of celebration among the death cultists! Baby killers, rejoice!
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
Christians do far more for hungry children than the left ever has or will.
That was a stupid statement
Im not sure that I can simplify the question any further. Who speaks for the child when the parents are wrong ?There are parents who would deny their children treatment because of their own personal religious beliefs. Who speaks up for the child then ?People arent property and the rights of the child outweigh those of the parents. Its not a difficult concept to grasp.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.
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.
Irrelevant.
Stop talking, admit you are wrong, be an adult. It won't hurt.
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.
Damn! You were sounding like me for a bit there. I think I need to check my socks!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....
Im not sure that I can simplify the question any further. Who speaks for the child when the parents are wrong ?There are parents who would deny their children treatment because of their own personal religious beliefs. Who speaks up for the child then ?People arent property and the rights of the child outweigh those of the parents. Its not a difficult concept to grasp.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.
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.
Irrelevant.
Stop talking, admit you are wrong, be an adult. It won't hurt.
No, he is beyond pain.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....
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.Im not sure that I can simplify the question any further. Who speaks for the child when the parents are wrong ?There are parents who would deny their children treatment because of their own personal religious beliefs. Who speaks up for the child then ?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.
Irrelevant.
Stop talking, admit you are wrong, be an adult. It won't hurt.
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?
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.Well I will say it slowly.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.
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..
Is it possible he only came to the UK when he found out how much money the Gards were sitting on ?
