The English baby that the British health plan want to kill should tell everyone a lot

Uhm really it's "free'? How much do you pay for a Snickers bar or Captain crunch cerial.. this will be interesting if you respond...


.

 

I already posted this in this thread I will post it again

 

Well I know you can figure it out but obviously there are some who need it explained.

 

Charlie isn't in a coma. But on the other hand Jesus did raise Lazarus from the dead.

 

you do actually understand that judges make decisions affecting families all the time. Right!

 

And it is their right to fight.

 

Reference to cases where doctors have sued people for on-line comments:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifesty...such-claims/TLAp5DOMpZISPevfLL6B1I/story.html
http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1076&context=healthmatrix (page 14 refers to a case where someone called the doctor a quack and the doctor won the lawsuit)

How is it that you do not see that judges are every bit as much a part of the government as Theresa May or Donald Trump is?

The position of GOSH may be clear, but the parents want something different, and the question here is who gets to decide. Most of us here in the US think the parents should. As for Charlie's rights, just what right are you asking for here, the right to die? We don't recognize that right, except in the state of Oregon.

Harmful, no, futile, yes. Hope springs eternal.

That would be the law doing that, not a judge. Do you not agree that five judges should not get to decide abortion law for 300 million Americans?

That would be the family, not a judge. It normally requires a judge to authorize pulling the plug, not vice-versa.

Which is why the death penalty is strictly limited to cases of murder and treason, and why there are multiple safeguards put in place after passing sentence to prevent faulty executions, up to and including the power of a president to grant a full pardon.

Good points, all. The US system is the way it is specifically because the costs are not limited by any government bureaucrats, i.e., the sky's the limit. But then we can do amazing things that nationalized health care cannot. As for releasing the child, that's a precedent that should be set. The UK NHS should not be making binding decisions on health care if the patients have other options.

I don't think it does. The baby's condition really isn't relevant here, nor are the chances of survival, the only thing that is relevant here is who gets to decide, the judge or the parents.

 

If you had actually read a case that supported you the good stuff would have been pasted up immediately.
Be real.

 

The funny thing is that I know a kid who had level 4 bleeding in the brain when she as an infant but she is fully functional today with only minor speech problems. The infant brain is extremely resilient and can rebound from trauma that older children and adults could never recover from.

This isn't even a case of UK taxpayers having to pay for it the Gard's raised enough money independently on their own. So why then is the court objecting to the Gard's using their own resources to try something else. Worst case scenario the experimental treatment doesn't work and Charlie is still pulled off life support. Even then valuable information would be gathered during the treatment/operation (whatever it is) that could further refine the experimental treatment even further.

 

They should not have to fight to hire the doctor of their choice to treat their child.

 

hoosier88 said: ↑
The case turns on the baby.

The attending doctors & consulting doctors (except the one who might perform the procedure, from the US) & the hospital all seem to agree that the chance of any improvement (not even addressing survival) are very slim - as the proposed treatment doesn't even address the mitochondrial problem directly. If Baby Charlie has no higher brain function @ age 11 months, & can't breathe on his own, doesn't respond neurologically to stimuli & so on, he is effectively brain dead. His cells can't produce the energy they need to grow & develop, & so he's been slowly dying from within ever since birth.

I think this is a tragedy all around. Without any effective treatment on the horizon for Baby Charlie's condition, I don't see the point to keeping the body alive. We can do that, to be sure. But Charlie doesn't show any neurological development, & so he's not analogous to a coma patient who suddenly wakes up one day & resumes his normal life. Charlie has never had a normal life, & so there's nothing in his neurological history to fall back on. His neural networks never developed, he only looks like a child.

 

The difference between the open letter of the actual patient and the random comment of an anonymous person on the internet that has zero impact on the doctors actual reputation being obvious. See the Texas case I cited where despite being called liar ostensibly per se defamation the doctor could not recover.

 

So you admit you didn't read the case. Thanks for playing.

 

It is quite simple, in the UK ultimate authority for someone unable to make decisions for themselves lies with an independent judge. If the doctor from the US can convince that judge it is in the best interests of Charlie to receive treatment, he will receive it. That is the way it works in the UK and most of Europe. If the Pope or Trump or Americans do not like it, tough **** it has nothing to do with private v public medicine.

 

Which is why the UK, would not allow you to make that choice for someone else.

 

Any gods wishing to be represented should apply to the judge if they have an opinion.

 

There is no right for the parent to chose, sorry wrong country. That is not the way an enlightened Europe does it.

 

Which probably goes along way to explaining why Europe is so ****ed up. They have given up all their rights to the EU or to their governments. The fact is that it is wrong for the ultimate authority to be a judge concerning an issue like this. I am still waiting for someone to explain to my why its bad for them to even try out the experimental treatment. Even if it doesn't end up working the information gathered from it will help expedite the treatment even further and it isn't costing any taxpayers a dime. To me this seems like a case of pure jealousy. Since not everyone in the UK could raise enough money for the treatment if their kid had the same issues then we should be fair to everyone and prevent anyone from seeking such treatment. This is an abhorent decision and is indefensible on any level.

For cheese sake this is a supremely rare condition with only 16 known cases world wide and they want to prevent any further study of it purely because of some whiny bitch ass fairness ideology? Talk about denying science.

 

Nothing to do with money. we believe in the rights of the individual. Nothing to do with denying science, Charlie is not a lab rat for you to experiment on.

 

So now you are claiming that anyone who decides to try out experimental treatment is now nothing more than a lab rat. LOL Talk about the most anti-science person I have met in a long time. Once again, tell me why trying to help with with the treatment is bad?

 

Charlie has not decided to try out experimental treatment. Anyone should be free to try out experimental treatment if they can make that decision for themselves.

 

So now you are going to deny any infant in the future from receiving any treatment for anything whatsoever under the "logic" that the baby didn't choose the treatment themselves? Infants don't choose heart surgeries or cleft lip operations either.

You just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into the bullshit hole. Do you hate babies or something and just want them all to die?

 

Not the same thing
And that money is actually NOT enough because you have to find some way of getting Charlie from one country to another

 

So if the treatment was a **** sandwhich would you be advocating for it?

 

No that is just your imagination, I have not said anything like that, when an individual cannot make the decision for themselves, a judge will decide based on the best advice science and ethics can offer. If you wish to debate, do so, stop with the insults.