Charlie Gard has passed

[koshergrl]

That is a matter of opinion. I remember when my grandmother died and there was a heated debate about continuing the care.
I GUARANTEE you no one celebrated when she died. There is a level of suffering that no human should be subjected to.
You ARE looking at this through emotional goggles.

In addition to everyone having a will, I strongly believe everyone should have a living will. This alleviates the entire family from being forced to make such painful decisions as you indicated. No one wants to be the one who pops up and says, okay, she's unconscious, hardly knows anyone time to pull the plug. Everybody with me?

My doctor as his practice has all patients have a living will on file. I drove him nuts saying I wanted all life preserving methods. No one is supposed to exercise that option.

My niece is a doctor. She says doctors aren't donors, btw. They don't want another doctor deciding they aren't worth saving.

 

[PredFan]

What people don't realize is that this isn't about socialized medicine. The child is being used to rail against socialized medicine. The parents had the money raised to treat the child. What stopped them is a law that essentially states that if the doctors and parents are in conflict the courts must consider the child first. That's where the problem. Even if there weren't socialized medicine the parents would have still faced the same legal obstacle.

I feel for them, it's highly unlikely the treatment would have had any affect, and the courts were faced with trying to determine whether That was worth the possible suffering he might have undergone.

There are no villains here, it's just a horrible disease and two parents desperate to try anything to save their child and doctors not wanting to cause further suffering

No.. Sorry.. There would be NO COURTS involved in that personal decision if the government didn't USURP the right to decide course of care and DENY the parents the right to TRANSFER the care of that child. Was NOT a medical decision. It was a Govt POLICY decision to deny the parents the right to transfer that child to another health care system..

EVERY patient is the same to them. It;'s GROSSLY dis-personal and GROSSLY not about medical efficacy or decisions.

It was based on a LAW that stated in a dispute over medical treatment between doctors and parents, the courts had to consider the child's interest as paramount. It was not government policy decision denying parents the right to transfer the child to another care system - it was what each party (the doctors and the parents) felt was best for the child and I think you do a great disservice to the doctors caring for him to say they are grossly dispersonal. If they were they wouldn't have opposed the parents.

I'm not saying that it's the case in THIS case but I can understand why that law exists when you see cases where medical treatment or lack of it can amount to child abuse.

Name a case where medical treatment by doctors was child abuse.

 

[flacaltenn]

What people don't realize is that this isn't about socialized medicine. The child is being used to rail against socialized medicine. The parents had the money raised to treat the child. What stopped them is a law that essentially states that if the doctors and parents are in conflict the courts must consider the child first. That's where the problem. Even if there weren't socialized medicine the parents would have still faced the same legal obstacle.

I feel for them, it's highly unlikely the treatment would have had any affect, and the courts were faced with trying to determine whether That was worth the possible suffering he might have undergone.

There are no villains here, it's just a horrible disease and two parents desperate to try anything to save their child and doctors not wanting to cause further suffering

No.. Sorry.. There would be NO COURTS involved in that personal decision if the government didn't USURP the right to decide course of care and DENY the parents the right to TRANSFER the care of that child. Was NOT a medical decision. It was a Govt POLICY decision to deny the parents the right to transfer that child to another health care system..

EVERY patient is the same to them. It;'s GROSSLY dis-personal and GROSSLY not about medical efficacy or decisions.

It was based on a LAW that stated in a dispute over medical treatment between doctors and parents, the courts had to consider the child's interest as paramount. It was not government policy decision denying parents the right to transfer the child to another care system - it was what each party (the doctors and the parents) felt was best for the child and I think you do a great disservice to the doctors caring for him to say they are grossly dispersonal. If they were they wouldn't have opposed the parents.

I'm not saying that it's the case in THIS case but I can understand why that law exists when you see cases where medical treatment or lack of it can amount to child abuse.

Name a case where medical treatment by doctors was child abuse.

THere are case where parents opt for NO treatment -- which CAN turn into child abuse disputes. But it's rare the other way around. UNLESS the treatment is so quacky, it can't even be RESEARCHED in the literature.

 

[PredFan]

What people don't realize is that this isn't about socialized medicine. The child is being used to rail against socialized medicine. The parents had the money raised to treat the child. What stopped them is a law that essentially states that if the doctors and parents are in conflict the courts must consider the child first. That's where the problem. Even if there weren't socialized medicine the parents would have still faced the same legal obstacle.

I feel for them, it's highly unlikely the treatment would have had any affect, and the courts were faced with trying to determine whether That was worth the possible suffering he might have undergone.

There are no villains here, it's just a horrible disease and two parents desperate to try anything to save their child and doctors not wanting to cause further suffering

No.. Sorry.. There would be NO COURTS involved in that personal decision if the government didn't USURP the right to decide course of care and DENY the parents the right to TRANSFER the care of that child. Was NOT a medical decision. It was a Govt POLICY decision to deny the parents the right to transfer that child to another health care system..

EVERY patient is the same to them. It;'s GROSSLY dis-personal and GROSSLY not about medical efficacy or decisions.

It was based on a LAW that stated in a dispute over medical treatment between doctors and parents, the courts had to consider the child's interest as paramount. It was not government policy decision denying parents the right to transfer the child to another care system - it was what each party (the doctors and the parents) felt was best for the child and I think you do a great disservice to the doctors caring for him to say they are grossly dispersonal. If they were they wouldn't have opposed the parents.

I'm not saying that it's the case in THIS case but I can understand why that law exists when you see cases where medical treatment or lack of it can amount to child abuse.

Name a case where medical treatment by doctors was child abuse.

THere are case where parents opt for NO treatment -- which CAN turn into child abuse disputes. But it's rare the other way around. UNLESS the treatment is so quacky, it can't even be RESEARCHED in the literature.

She stated that there could be cases where medical treatment was child abuse. She's a liar.

 

[Markle]

Go on. Tell me what I know.

If you do not, you are spouting off without having the benefit of knowing what you are talking about.

You claim that patients in Britain receive superior care than those in the United States.

How does that work when you can't see a physician in Britain for months or even YEARS?

Hospital waiting lists at seven-year high as 3.4m need treatment: More than 6,000 forced to wait at least a year for operations

• 6,100 patients forced to wait at least a year for an operation
• In the worse cases, patients have a three year wait for treatment
• Up to one in seven hospital procedures are unnecessary, according to the medical director of NHS England

By Sophie Borland for the Daily Mail

PUBLISHED: 19:31 EDT, 12 July 2015 | UPDATED: 01:31 EDT, 13 July 2015

Almost 3.4million patients are languishing on NHS waiting lists – the highest number in seven years.

They include more than 6,100 forced to wait at least a year for operations or treatment. In the worst examples the delay has been nearly three years.

The numbers are the highest since January 2008 and show the extent to which hospitals are struggling to meet the needs of the growing, ageing population.

Experts said the waits of weeks or months were extremely distressing for patients, some of whom are in considerable pain.

Almost 3.4million patients are languishing on NHS waiting lists – the highest number in seven years.

They include more than 6,100 forced to wait at least a year for operations or treatment. In the worst examples the delay has been nearly three years.

The numbers are the highest since January 2008 and show the extent to which hospitals are struggling to meet the needs of the growing, ageing population.

Experts said the waits of weeks or months were extremely distressing for patients, some of whom are in considerable pain.

Read more: NHS hospital waiting lists at seven-year high as 3.4m need treatment | Daily Mail Online

 

[Coyote]

What people don't realize is that this isn't about socialized medicine. The child is being used to rail against socialized medicine. The parents had the money raised to treat the child. What stopped them is a law that essentially states that if the doctors and parents are in conflict the courts must consider the child first. That's where the problem. Even if there weren't socialized medicine the parents would have still faced the same legal obstacle.

I feel for them, it's highly unlikely the treatment would have had any affect, and the courts were faced with trying to determine whether That was worth the possible suffering he might have undergone.

There are no villains here, it's just a horrible disease and two parents desperate to try anything to save their child and doctors not wanting to cause further suffering

No.. Sorry.. There would be NO COURTS involved in that personal decision if the government didn't USURP the right to decide course of care and DENY the parents the right to TRANSFER the care of that child. Was NOT a medical decision. It was a Govt POLICY decision to deny the parents the right to transfer that child to another health care system..

EVERY patient is the same to them. It;'s GROSSLY dis-personal and GROSSLY not about medical efficacy or decisions.

It was based on a LAW that stated in a dispute over medical treatment between doctors and parents, the courts had to consider the child's interest as paramount. It was not government policy decision denying parents the right to transfer the child to another care system - it was what each party (the doctors and the parents) felt was best for the child and I think you do a great disservice to the doctors caring for him to say they are grossly dispersonal. If they were they wouldn't have opposed the parents.

I'm not saying that it's the case in THIS case but I can understand why that law exists when you see cases where medical treatment or lack of it can amount to child abuse.

Not actually. It's based on a LAW that give Brit Health Service the right to dictate terms of service. That's not the same as the purer "science" debate between doctors IN the Brit Health and outside systems.

If it was a argument between doctors, the PARENTS would be the ones to decide. It's subtle. But a VERY important difference...

British Health Service is NOT DOCTORS.... It's legislation, bureaucracy, and arrogance...

I'm not getting the same take on it. Looking at what wiki wrote, and two sources it links to, there appears to be a lot more to it.

Great Ormond Street Hospital v Yates & Ors [2017] EWHC 972 (Fam) (11 April 2017)

1. [2006] 2 FLR 319. He said as follows:
   
   "(i) As a dispute has arisen between the treating doctors and the parents, and one, and now both, parties have asked the court to make a decision, it is the role and duty of the court to do so and to exercise its own independent and objective judgment.
   
   (ii) The right and power of the court to do so only arises because the patient, in this case because he is a child, lacks the capacity to make a decision for himself.
   
   (iii) I am not deciding what decision I might make for myself if I was, hypothetically, in the situation of the patient; nor for a child of my own if in that situation; nor whether the respective decisions of the doctors on the one hand or the parents on the other are reasonable decisions.
   
   (iv) The matter must be decided by the application of an objective approach or test.
   
   (v) That test is the best interests of the patient. Best interests are used in the widest sense and include every kind of consideration capable of impacting on the decision. These include, non-exhaustively, medical, emotional, sensory (pleasure, pain and suffering) and instinctive (the human instinct to survive) considerations.
   
   (vi) It is impossible to weigh such considerations mathematically, but the court must do the best it can to balance all the conflicting considerations in a particular case and see where the final balance of the best interests lies.
   
   (vii) Considerable weight (Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR referred to 'a very strong presumption') must be attached to the prolongation of life because the individual human instinct and desire to survive is strong and must be presumed to be strong in the patient. But it is not absolute, nor necessarily decisive; and may be outweighed if the pleasures and the quality of life are sufficiently small and the pain and suffering or other burdens of living are sufficiently great.
   
   (viii) These considerations remain well expressed in the words as relatively long ago now as 1991 of Lord Donaldson of Lymington in Re J (A minor) (wardship: medical treatment) [1991] Fam 33 at page 46 where he said:
   
   
   
   .',

 

[koshergrl]

What people don't realize is that this isn't about socialized medicine. The child is being used to rail against socialized medicine. The parents had the money raised to treat the child. What stopped them is a law that essentially states that if the doctors and parents are in conflict the courts must consider the child first. That's where the problem. Even if there weren't socialized medicine the parents would have still faced the same legal obstacle.

I feel for them, it's highly unlikely the treatment would have had any affect, and the courts were faced with trying to determine whether That was worth the possible suffering he might have undergone.

There are no villains here, it's just a horrible disease and two parents desperate to try anything to save their child and doctors not wanting to cause further suffering

No.. Sorry.. There would be NO COURTS involved in that personal decision if the government didn't USURP the right to decide course of care and DENY the parents the right to TRANSFER the care of that child. Was NOT a medical decision. It was a Govt POLICY decision to deny the parents the right to transfer that child to another health care system..

EVERY patient is the same to them. It;'s GROSSLY dis-personal and GROSSLY not about medical efficacy or decisions.

It was based on a LAW that stated in a dispute over medical treatment between doctors and parents, the courts had to consider the child's interest as paramount. It was not government policy decision denying parents the right to transfer the child to another care system - it was what each party (the doctors and the parents) felt was best for the child and I think you do a great disservice to the doctors caring for him to say they are grossly dispersonal. If they were they wouldn't have opposed the parents.

I'm not saying that it's the case in THIS case but I can understand why that law exists when you see cases where medical treatment or lack of it can amount to child abuse.

Name a case where medical treatment by doctors was child abuse.

THere are case where parents opt for NO treatment -- which CAN turn into child abuse disputes. But it's rare the other way around. UNLESS the treatment is so quacky, it can't even be RESEARCHED in the literature.

If only the workers would exert this sort of energy to remove kids from families that really are abusive.

They don't.

 

[Markle]

Well the .leftists got their fitst post birth legal abortion. They will claim their is precedent to abort babies up to one year of age.

Think not? It's coming.

Petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama's Science Czar, John Holdren had written in the 1970's that in order to control population, forced sterilization, forced abortion and that infants up to two years old could be "aborted".

Big Dogs Weblog » infanticide excerpt below: ...

John Holdren, a Harvard University Professor (aren’t they all), who has advocated in the past that it would be okay to abort an infant up to two years old. That’s right, kill babies. His reasoning is that until the baby can realize that there’s a tomorrow, the baby is not really human. He also has postulated that sterilants (birth control drugs) should be added to the water we drink, on the grounds that there are already too many people, and certainly too many of the wrong kind, whatever that is supposed to mean.

www.mylot.com/post/2080901/0bama-science-czar-ok-to-kill-toddlers

This is the goal of Progressives.

I have a newsflash for the professor, you kill a child it's not abortion, it's murder.

Sick bastard needs "aborted'

John Holdren's terminology, not mine.

Ezekiel Emmanual, brother of former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanual had also written extensively about drastically limiting health care for people younger than 18, more limited for those under 10 or 12 and for those over 70. His reasoning is that they have little or nothing to contribute to society and money should not be wasted on them.

 

[Coyote]

What people don't realize is that this isn't about socialized medicine. The child is being used to rail against socialized medicine. The parents had the money raised to treat the child. What stopped them is a law that essentially states that if the doctors and parents are in conflict the courts must consider the child first. That's where the problem. Even if there weren't socialized medicine the parents would have still faced the same legal obstacle.

I feel for them, it's highly unlikely the treatment would have had any affect, and the courts were faced with trying to determine whether That was worth the possible suffering he might have undergone.

There are no villains here, it's just a horrible disease and two parents desperate to try anything to save their child and doctors not wanting to cause further suffering

No.. Sorry.. There would be NO COURTS involved in that personal decision if the government didn't USURP the right to decide course of care and DENY the parents the right to TRANSFER the care of that child. Was NOT a medical decision. It was a Govt POLICY decision to deny the parents the right to transfer that child to another health care system..

EVERY patient is the same to them. It;'s GROSSLY dis-personal and GROSSLY not about medical efficacy or decisions.

It was based on a LAW that stated in a dispute over medical treatment between doctors and parents, the courts had to consider the child's interest as paramount. It was not government policy decision denying parents the right to transfer the child to another care system - it was what each party (the doctors and the parents) felt was best for the child and I think you do a great disservice to the doctors caring for him to say they are grossly dispersonal. If they were they wouldn't have opposed the parents.

I'm not saying that it's the case in THIS case but I can understand why that law exists when you see cases where medical treatment or lack of it can amount to child abuse.

Name a case where medical treatment by doctors was child abuse.

I wasn't thinking about doctors so much as treatment by quacks land non-doctors.

 

[PredFan]

Well the .leftists got their fitst post birth legal abortion. They will claim their is precedent to abort babies up to one year of age.

Think not? It's coming.

Petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama's Science Czar, John Holdren had written in the 1970's that in order to control population, forced sterilization, forced abortion and that infants up to two years old could be "aborted".

Big Dogs Weblog » infanticide excerpt below: ...

John Holdren, a Harvard University Professor (aren’t they all), who has advocated in the past that it would be okay to abort an infant up to two years old. That’s right, kill babies. His reasoning is that until the baby can realize that there’s a tomorrow, the baby is not really human. He also has postulated that sterilants (birth control drugs) should be added to the water we drink, on the grounds that there are already too many people, and certainly too many of the wrong kind, whatever that is supposed to mean.

www.mylot.com/post/2080901/0bama-science-czar-ok-to-kill-toddlers

This is the goal of Progressives.

I have a newsflash for the professor, you kill a child it's not abortion, it's murder.

Sick bastard needs "aborted'

John Holdren's terminology, not mine.

Ezekiel Emmanual, brother of former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanual had also written extensively about drastically limiting health care for people younger than 18, more limited for those under 10 or 12 and for those over 70. His reasoning is that they have little or nothing to contribute to society and money should not be wasted on them.

This will be the mantra within 10 years of socialized medicine in this country.

 

[flacaltenn]

What people don't realize is that this isn't about socialized medicine. The child is being used to rail against socialized medicine. The parents had the money raised to treat the child. What stopped them is a law that essentially states that if the doctors and parents are in conflict the courts must consider the child first. That's where the problem. Even if there weren't socialized medicine the parents would have still faced the same legal obstacle.

I feel for them, it's highly unlikely the treatment would have had any affect, and the courts were faced with trying to determine whether That was worth the possible suffering he might have undergone.

There are no villains here, it's just a horrible disease and two parents desperate to try anything to save their child and doctors not wanting to cause further suffering

No.. Sorry.. There would be NO COURTS involved in that personal decision if the government didn't USURP the right to decide course of care and DENY the parents the right to TRANSFER the care of that child. Was NOT a medical decision. It was a Govt POLICY decision to deny the parents the right to transfer that child to another health care system..

EVERY patient is the same to them. It;'s GROSSLY dis-personal and GROSSLY not about medical efficacy or decisions.

It was based on a LAW that stated in a dispute over medical treatment between doctors and parents, the courts had to consider the child's interest as paramount. It was not government policy decision denying parents the right to transfer the child to another care system - it was what each party (the doctors and the parents) felt was best for the child and I think you do a great disservice to the doctors caring for him to say they are grossly dispersonal. If they were they wouldn't have opposed the parents.

I'm not saying that it's the case in THIS case but I can understand why that law exists when you see cases where medical treatment or lack of it can amount to child abuse.

Name a case where medical treatment by doctors was child abuse.

I wasn't thinking about doctors so much as treatment by quacks land non-doctors.

Doctors argue treatment plans all the time. It doesn't end up in court.. I've spent my time working in hospitals with the equipment we've designed. It's SCARY to hear the actual debates that the patients never hear.

That's why nurses all become so cynical about doctors I guess...

 

[koshergrl]

What people don't realize is that this isn't about socialized medicine. The child is being used to rail against socialized medicine. The parents had the money raised to treat the child. What stopped them is a law that essentially states that if the doctors and parents are in conflict the courts must consider the child first. That's where the problem. Even if there weren't socialized medicine the parents would have still faced the same legal obstacle.

I feel for them, it's highly unlikely the treatment would have had any affect, and the courts were faced with trying to determine whether That was worth the possible suffering he might have undergone.

There are no villains here, it's just a horrible disease and two parents desperate to try anything to save their child and doctors not wanting to cause further suffering

No.. Sorry.. There would be NO COURTS involved in that personal decision if the government didn't USURP the right to decide course of care and DENY the parents the right to TRANSFER the care of that child. Was NOT a medical decision. It was a Govt POLICY decision to deny the parents the right to transfer that child to another health care system..

EVERY patient is the same to them. It;'s GROSSLY dis-personal and GROSSLY not about medical efficacy or decisions.

It was based on a LAW that stated in a dispute over medical treatment between doctors and parents, the courts had to consider the child's interest as paramount. It was not government policy decision denying parents the right to transfer the child to another care system - it was what each party (the doctors and the parents) felt was best for the child and I think you do a great disservice to the doctors caring for him to say they are grossly dispersonal. If they were they wouldn't have opposed the parents.

I'm not saying that it's the case in THIS case but I can understand why that law exists when you see cases where medical treatment or lack of it can amount to child abuse.

Name a case where medical treatment by doctors was child abuse.

I wasn't thinking about doctors so much as treatment by quacks land non-doctors.

Oh..abortionists?

 

[PredFan]

I remember back in the early days of my practice, I watched the doctors go to the courts to get them to override a Jehovah's Witness parent's refusal to allow their child to receive blood.

It hasn't happened in a long time, why? Because rather than hassle with that and alienate parents (customers), we changed the way we practice and lo and behold, we were giving blood unnescessarily the whole time. Nowadays outside of surgery, its rare.

Here in the US, we care about our patients as a whole person, not just a disease, or a liver, or a set of lungs. That's why we have the best healthcare system in the world.

 

[Markle]

They removed life support. It happens often.

True, but that is not the issue.

It is not the government who makes that decision. It is the patient, family and/or doctors, not congress.

 

[Markle]

What harm would have been done to try to save the child's life? None at all.

My guess is that it would have established a precedent of their patients coming to the United States for treatment either unavailable or the waiting list is too long.

 

[Markle]

The gubmint didn't deny it. The courts did. The treatment also wasn't life saving.

The courts were upholding the laws and regulations of the NHS. What else do you think courts rule on, a whim?

 

[Political Junky]

Go on. Tell me what I know.

If you do not, you are spouting off without having the benefit of knowing what you are talking about.

You claim that patients in Britain receive superior care than those in the United States.

How does that work when you can't see a physician in Britain for months or even YEARS?

Hospital waiting lists at seven-year high as 3.4m need treatment: More than 6,000 forced to wait at least a year for operations

• 6,100 patients forced to wait at least a year for an operation
• In the worse cases, patients have a three year wait for treatment
• Up to one in seven hospital procedures are unnecessary, according to the medical director of NHS England

By Sophie Borland for the Daily Mail

PUBLISHED: 19:31 EDT, 12 July 2015 | UPDATED: 01:31 EDT, 13 July 2015

Almost 3.4million patients are languishing on NHS waiting lists – the highest number in seven years.

They include more than 6,100 forced to wait at least a year for operations or treatment. In the worst examples the delay has been nearly three years.

The numbers are the highest since January 2008 and show the extent to which hospitals are struggling to meet the needs of the growing, ageing population.

Experts said the waits of weeks or months were extremely distressing for patients, some of whom are in considerable pain.

Almost 3.4million patients are languishing on NHS waiting lists – the highest number in seven years.

They include more than 6,100 forced to wait at least a year for operations or treatment. In the worst examples the delay has been nearly three years.

The numbers are the highest since January 2008 and show the extent to which hospitals are struggling to meet the needs of the growing, ageing population.

Experts said the waits of weeks or months were extremely distressing for patients, some of whom are in considerable pain.

Read more: NHS hospital waiting lists at seven-year high as 3.4m need treatment | Daily Mail Online

For elective surgery, perhaps.
One waits in the US for elective surgery, too.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Except his parents had the money for the treatment. Gawd you're dense

And the US specialist went to the UK and said he had between 11% and 52% of the treatment doing 'something'....

It's better than no hope.


No?


Why do you leftys promote death over life?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Charlie is in a great place now, the shortest time of his life on Earth he started a discussion..

He became a United States citizen..he touched everyone including the pope..

Now what do we do with this argument, ignore it let it fade away or do something about it.

 

[IsaacNewton]

20,000 children died around the world yesterday. 20,000 more tomorrow and every day after that.

But conservatives look for deaths they can use for political purposes. The rest are ignored.