Charlie Gard has passed

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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!!!

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

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.

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!!!

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

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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!!!

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

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]

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.

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.

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...

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]

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.