Well the socialized medicine death panel did their dirty deed in England

I'll pose another question to one of the progs promulgating a narrative based upon an inconsistency.

How does a brain dead individual have rights?

 

Big Brother rules in the UK - and they love him to death.

 

It is not a prog diagnosis it is a medical diagnosis, do you think doctors only come in one political flavour!

 

Charlie wasn't brain dead. None of his medical team claimed he was.

The American quack doctor offering Charlie's parents hope hadn't even bothered to look at his brain scans or read his medical notes.

Turns out, this person has a financial interest in some of the compounds he wanted to use on Charlie.

Snake oil salesman, no less....and a very cruel man.

He would have taken the money raised by Charlie's parents, knowing any treatment was pointless.

 

Money rules in the US and they will experiment on anyone if you pay enough!

 

This is too nuanced an argument for some!

 

Because he wouldn't have been cured. The snake oil salesman in the US wanted to be paid millions of dollars to use this kid as a human test subject for a procedure that wasn't even intended to treat the disease the kid has.

 

No idea, what has this to do with this case?

 

Oh? How do you know that the position of 'professional' and 'doctor' isn't being subverted to insert a political narrative?

Brain dead people don't feel pain. That is a medical diagnosis. Careful how you step here, RiaRaeb. You'll find it very difficult to defend multiple positions you leftists hold, including your stance on abortion.

I have 10 MDs in my family tree on my mom's side, two anesthesiologists, and three radiologists. I'm not addressing the varieties of political opinion found in people. I'm pointing out a political reason for claiming that a brain dead individual feels pain.

By definition brain dead means an inability to feel anything.

 

Hm. What experimental treatment for any slight hope would be immune to such a charge?

Why - if what you say is true - are your fellow lefties simultaneously claiming that Charlie Gard was brain dead while justifying a lack of treatment for that reason?

Or are you willing to support any quick shift of goal posts to defend Government health care and the removal of family rights in favor of inserting Government panels in between the patient and the family?

 

So all you have to do is show where any doctor said he was brain dead, simples! Then your post will be relevant.

 

Oh! You suddenly don't have any idea, yet you're basing your entire case claiming that the State is defending the rights of a brain dead patient?

Seems like you have huge cracks in your narrative, prog.

 

Oh, I'm not addressing what the doctors actually said or didn't say. I'm basing my argument upon what you and other progs are saying.

And what you and other progs are saying - right here in this very thread - is that Charlie Gard is brain dead.

 

Only corporate bureaucrats and accountants should have that power, right?

 

So all you have to do now is show where I have claimed he is brain dead, but Logical 1 described this child as brain dead.

 

Ria is Most definitely NOT saying Gard was brain dead in this thread so why are you deliberately lying?

 

There was no hope at all. None. Never was.

No idea. They are mistaken.

I don't need to move any gaol posts. I'm just putting you right.

Not sure what you mean by family rights. Charlie's parents were fooled by that American doctor, but GOSH wasn't.

They put Charlie first. Nobody has the right to allow a quack to experiment on another person when it's not in their best interests in my country.
Can't speak for yours.

 

While in the UK you can't pay enough to get out of the Death House.

 

Well you can, but the US doctor did not visit when requested in January, he did not show until July 18th, maybe £1,3 million was not enough, you would have to ask him.

 

LOL! Why should he have had to "visit" the patient? To tap on his chest and knee? To "listen" to his heart beat?

Surely, even in the NHS ridden UK, medicine has advanced past the 19th century. There was no medical need for the parents chosen doctor to leave his office to know every relevant detail about the patient's condition.

Why pretend you do not know this? Politics.

 

Again as in the previous thread you are confusing what you know, with what you think you know.

If you think it is because of politics all you have to do is provide some evidence, but opinions such as yours are just that, opinion.

 

You support Big Government controlled healthcare. That is pure politics. It is also what you were taught.

That is why you promoted the fiction that a doctor has to "visit" a patient to know every detail of his condition.
Pure politics.

 

Again, this has nothing to do with Big Government controlled healthcare, this is about who decides what is best for a child. If you can show the doctor did not have to visit the child and the doctors at GOSH were not correct in their opinion, do so. Otherwise it is just your opinion of what examination is required against one of the best children's hospitals in the world.

 

LOL! Only Big Government can arrest and hold a child until it dies and withhold care to kill the child faster.
Only Big Government in its most authoritarian intrusive form can forbid parents from choosing the licensed doctor to treat their child.

So, again, why are you disingenuously pretending that you do not know that doctors do not have to "visit" patients to know every detail of their condition? Pure politics.

 

"Lefties" are always all about the politics.