Charlie Gard has passed

[Coyote]

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.

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

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

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

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

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

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

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

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

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

 

[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.

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

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

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

 

[badger2]

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

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

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

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

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

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

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

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

 

[Coyote]

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.

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

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

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

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

Will you now answer my question?

 

[Coyote]

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

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

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

Nothing is hidden.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

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

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

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

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

Will you now answer my question?

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

 

[Coyote]

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.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes this is two different situations.

 

[Coyote]

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.

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

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

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

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

Will you now answer my question?

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

This is what I quoted in an earlier post:

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Coyote]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes this is two different situations.

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

 

[Coyote]

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.

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

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

So do you have an answer to this question?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes this is two different situations.

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

AH there it is, your usual pandering to Muslims.

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

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

 

[Coyote]

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

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

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

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

Yes this is two different situations.

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

AH there it is, your usual pandering to Muslims.

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

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

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

Why should we be less compassionate?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

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

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

So do you have an answer to this question?

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

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

 

[Coyote]

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.

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

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

So do you have an answer to this question?

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

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

I politely answered YOUR question when you demanded it.

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

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

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

 

[PredFan]

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.

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

 

[Tommy Tainant]

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.

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